The three-judge bench of Supreme Court consisting of J. Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Aravind Kumar delivered an important judgment to update certain aspects of the 2017 guidelines for advocates designation. The guidelines for designation of advocates were given in a previous judgement in the year 2017. The modifications include aspects related to secret voting Ballot, points for Publication, age limits, etc. 

Join Now! India's Largest directory of lawyers and legal professionals

Highlighted Changes in guidelines 

It is in this respect that new changes have been debated in the court and he following decisions have been taken- 

1. Pointing on the basis of experience- According to the guideline, 10 points to be given for all advocates practicing between 10-20 years and 20 points for advocates practicing beyond 20 years. As a result, be that an applicant with 11 years of practice and an applicant with 19 years of practice would get the same points in this criterion. To mend this, the Court observed that under this category, one mark each shall be allocated for every year of practice between 10-20 years.
2. Voting by Secret Ballot- This system is to be used only in cases of rarity and exceptions and whenever it is used, reasons for the same must be recorded. The reason here is that usage of this system defeats the purpose of guideline which is to make the process of designation transparent. 
3. Cut off marks- The idea of determining a cut-off mark and communicating the same to the applicants was scraped and it is said by the court that the determination of number of successful applicants must be left to the Permanent Committee, which shall consider the same depending on the total number of applicants, the marks obtained by them, and the number of people that can be invited for the personal interview. 
4. Publications- While points assigned for publications are 15 points, this quantum was considered by the court to be high as most practicing advocates find very less time to write academic articles. While publishing articles do not directly reflect the advocacy skills, but the criteria was decided not the be done away with as it contributes to the intellect and development of law. Considering this, the points for publication was reduced to 5. Along with publications, delivering lectures, teaching assignments in law schools also shall be considered within this point head. The permanent committee is to consider the quality of the publications while allotting points for the same. 
5. Judgements and Pro bono work- The points for the second head (relating to reportable and unreportable judgements and pro-bono work) has been increased from 40 to 50 points. While awarding the points, the permanent committee is to consider factors like specialisation of the advocates, quality of synopsis etc. There has been concession in appearances given to advocates having any domain of expertise. 
6. Personal Interview- The number candidates to be of interviewed is to limited to such number as me deemed fit by the permanent committee so as to streamline and make the process quick and effective.
7. Frequency - The process of designation is now to be undertaken only once in a year in each High Court as against twice under the 2018 guidelines. 
8. Age Limit- Applicants for the designation is not to be restricted of 45 age plus, younger advocates reflecting exceptional skills may also be inducted. 

BRIEF BACKGROUND

The designation of senior advocate is awarded to those advocates who have made significant contribution in the field of law through their valuable contribution. Today, the Supreme Court and High Courts is empowered to confer this designation to practicing advocate with their consent (Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961).

As per the Advocates (Amendment) Act, 1973, the stated criteria for this designation is “ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law”. Further the discretion rests solely with the High Courts and Supreme Court of India. 

While High Courts in India had no uniform criteria, the Supreme Court, on the other hand, processed the applications for Senior Advocates by deliberation by the Full Court and were put to vote through secret ballots. Therefore, the designation was not based on any objective criteria. It was in this background that the writ petition for mending the prevalent system of designation. 

Indira Jaising v Supreme Court of India, 2017

This writ petition was filed on the ground that the current system was flawed, unfair and lacked transparency. The three-judge bench in this case brought in a series of guidelines for designation and at the same time, retaining its suo-moto power to do so. A permanent committee was set up consisting of five members to be headed by Chief Justice and two senior-most Judges. The Attorney General/Advocate General of the State was also to be a Member of this Committee. In order to provide further representation, the fifth Member was to be nominated from the Bar by the aforementioned four Members of the Permanent Committee. A pointing system was formulated awarding prescribed points to the applicant based on the works accomplished by him/her. It is important to note that this criteria listing was not exhaustive and was declared by court to be subject to reconsideration over a period of time whenever it is deemed necessary. 

This judgement, just like the 2017 guidelines does not intend to take away the suo-moto power of the full court in exceptional cases. Further, the existing applications must be considered under new norms only, although, the applicants can update their applications in the light of the new norms.