On March 19, the Supreme Court scrutinized the inclusion of high-ranking bar members, such as the Attorney General for India and the Advocates Generals, in its Permanent Committee responsible for evaluating candidates for senior advocate designations.
Justice Abhay Oka, during a bench session with Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice SVN Bhatti, raised critical questions about the appropriateness of involving bar members in a process traditionally handled by the Full Court. “If the Full Court is supposed to make decisions, how can members outside of it be involved in this decision-making process?” Justice Oka inquired.
This issue arose during reconsideration of the landmark Indira Jaising judgments of 2017 and 2023, which established guidelines for senior advocate designations. A division bench last month questioned these procedures, prompting the formation of a three-judge bench that subsequently sought insights from all High Courts and relevant legal bodies.
During the hearing, Attorney General R. Venkataramani defended the existing system while admitting it has flaws and suggested eliminating the interview process to streamline assessments. On the other hand, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the apex court, proposed a complete overhaul, advocating for a secret ballot voting system by the Full Court and opposing any influence from individual judges or bar members in recommending candidates.
Justice Oka specifically targeted the rationale behind bar members’ involvement, emphasizing the potential conflict between personal acquaintance and objective assessment. Venkataramani acknowledged these challenges, stating, “Judges alone should be the ones assessing, as they are not influenced by personal relationships.”
The Solicitor General also criticized the current system’s reliance on the Permanent Committee, highlighting the need for a process that does not depend on subjective judgments about a candidate’s personality or suitability. Instead, Mehta suggested that the Full Court should have the final say, with a possible support mechanism to collect and provide detailed background information on candidates.
The bench also discussed the practical burdens on the Permanent Committee members, with Venkataramani pointing out the exhaustive nature of reviewing detailed legal documents and judgments. “If the members tasked with assigning marks cannot dedicate adequate time to assess the materials, how can we trust the validity of their evaluations?” Justice Oka asked.
