The Supreme Court on Friday recommended that the Delhi High Court undertake a new exercise to reassess the senior designations for lawyers whose applications were previously rejected or deferred. Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan addressed the matter, urging the Delhi High Court to reconvene its committee to reevaluate the candidates in line with the principles set out in the landmark Indira Jaising judgment.
Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, representing the Delhi High Court, was instructed to consult the court and return with a plan by the next hearing scheduled for April 15. The top court’s suggestion came during a hearing of a plea that challenged the High Court’s decision from November 2024, which saw 70 advocates, including 12 women, designated as senior advocates amid claims of procedural irregularities.
The designation of senior advocates is a prestigious acknowledgment bestowed by the Supreme Court and high courts, recognizing a lawyer’s expertise, courtroom skills, and legal knowledge. Over 300 lawyers had applied for this esteemed recognition, but the selection process has come under scrutiny.
Justice Oka noted, “We are suggesting that for deferred candidates and those rejected, the committee will undertake a fresh exercise in terms of the Indira Jaising judgment. This implies that the entire process has to be conducted anew by reconstituting the committee.”
While Rao suggested that the remaining applications could be considered in a full court session of the high court, counsel for the aggrieved petitioners argued that the existing marking procedure was flawed, casting doubts over the fairness of the selection process.
In a previous session on February 20, the Supreme Court expressed the need for “serious introspection” regarding the criteria and method used to designate senior advocates. The court also debated the efficacy of brief interviews as a measure of a candidate’s suitability, questioning whether such a method could truly assess an advocate’s personality and capabilities.
The ongoing debate touches on broader issues of transparency and criteria in the judicial appointment and recognition processes. The Supreme Court has referred the matter to Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna to decide if a larger bench should deliberate on whether applications for senior designations align with legislative intentions under Section 16 of the Advocates Act.
