MS. INDIRA JAISING versus THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2017] 10 S.C.R. 478 · Decided: 12-10-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2017] 10 S.C.R. 478 
MS. INDIRA JAISING 
v. 
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY 
GENERAL AND ORS. 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of2015) 
OCTOBER 12.2017 
[RANJAN GOGOi, R. F. NARIMAN 
AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.) 
c Advocates: 
Designation of Senior Advocate~ - Writ petition seeking 
declaration that the practice of designation of Senior Advocates 
arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 15, 18 and :!I, tl111s, 
unconstitutional and null and void - Held: Practice of classifving 
D people as senior advocates is constitutional - Exercise of the power 
vested in the Supreme Court and the High Courts to designate an 
Advocate as a Senior Advocate is circumscribed by the requirement 
of due sati;,faction that the concerned advocore .fit/fills the three 
conditions stipulated u/s. 16, ability; standing at the bar; and/or 
E 
F 
special knowledge or experience in law that the person seeking 
designation has acquired - Thus, the practice of classifying 
advocates as Senior Advocates conferred by s.16 is constitutionally 
permissible, so long as the bas1:s of the classification is founded on 
reasonable parameters - Criteria prescribed would go to determine 
the standing of the Advocate at the bar, is the o~ject behind the 
classification - Such an object would enhance the value of the 
legal system that Advocates represent - However, there is a need 
for more transparency and unifonn parameters/guidelines - Process 
to ensure that there is strict scrutiny of credentials and the most 
deserving and best is bestowed with the designation - Jn view thereof, 
norms/guidelines, which henceforth would govern the exercise of 
G designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court and all High 
Courts, laid down - Advocates Act, 1961 - s. 16 - Constitution of 
India -Arts 14, 15 and 21- Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Or. IV r. 2. 
Appointment /designation as senior advocates - Un(form 
norms/Guidelines laid down for Supreme Court and all High Courts 
H 
to designate lawyers as senior advocates - Modification of the 
478 
MS. INDIRA JAlSlNG v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 
479 
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL 
existing guidelines - Held: There should be Permanent Committee 
A 
for designation of senior advocates, with members specified and a 
Permanent Secretariat - All applications/proposals by the Hon 'ble 
judges would be submitted to the Secretariat, and the Secretariat 
would process the same - Proposed names would be put up on 
website to invite suggestions and views - Thereafter, compiled data 
B 
base would be put up before Permanent Committee for scrutiny -
Permanent Committee would interview the concerned advocate and 
make its overall assessment on the basis of point based format -
Names cleared by Permanent Committee would go to Full Court -
Voting by secret ballot would not be resorted to by the Full Court 
except when unavoidable - Cases not favourably considered by C 
the Full Court may be reviewed/reconsidered after two years - In 
case any senior advocate not found worthy of his designation, Full 
Court may review/recall its decision - Said guidelines not exhaustive 
and Supreme Court can change them when required. 
Appointment/designation as senior counsel - Process I criteria 
D 
for - Prevailing practice in Supreme Court, different High Courts 
in India as also in various countries - Elucidated. 
Advocates Act, 1961: 
s. 16 - Procedure for designation as Senior Advocates -
·Subjective. and objective criteria - Held: Both s. 16(2) and Order 
E 
IV rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 use expression "is of 
opinion" and "in their opinion" respectively which controls the 
power of the Full Court to designate an Advocate as a Senior 
Advocate - It is a subjective exercise to be per.formed by the Full 
Court - However, the opinion, though su~jective, has to be founded . F 
on objective materials - There has to be a full ai1d effective 
consideration of the criteria prescribed-ability; standing at the Bar, 
special knowledge or experience in law - Though the Supreme Court 
and various High Courts have taken steps to bring in some objective 
parameters, the same must be fair, transparent and reasonable 
exercise of a statutory dispensation on which touchstone the exercise 
G 
of designation u/s.16 can be justified. 
s. 16 - Designation of Senior Advocates - Amendment of the 
guidelines framed by the High Court of Meghalaya whereby the 
requirement of 05 years 'practice in any Court within thejurisdicpon 
the High Court of Meghalaya 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.