A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice SVN Bhatti, in Jitender @ Kalla vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025], referred key aspects of the senior advocate designation process laid down in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017 and 2023) to a larger Bench for reconsideration. The Court noted serious concerns with the objectivity, integrity, and inclusivity of the current guidelines framed under Article 142 of the Constitution. It addressed procedural flaws in the application, interview, and marking system and observed the need to ensure the process is fair, transparent, and constitutionally valid.
Background:
The referral stemmed from issues flagged in the Jitender @ Kalla case, where a Senior Advocate was found to have made material misrepresentations before the Court in multiple matters. The Court observed that this raised fundamental questions about the efficacy of the designation framework under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, particularly the integrity checks and marking system established in Indira Jaising-1 and modified in Indira Jaising-2.
Earlier judgments had upheld the validity of Section 16 and framed a structured system involving a Permanent Committee, interviews, and a 100-point marking matrix. However, misuse and lack of accountability prompted judicial introspection.
Key Observations and Issues Flagged by the Court:
- Application System vs. Statutory Scheme:
The Court questioned whether advocates should be allowed to apply for designation, as Section 16(2) contemplates conferment by the Court with the advocate’s consent — not upon application. - Interview/Interaction Process:
The judgment doubted the utility and dignity of making senior and experienced advocates undergo an interview for 25 out of 100 marks. The Bench observed,
“By making such an advocate appear for an interview, are we not compromising on the dignity of the advocate?” - Integrity and Character Not Included in Marking:
The Court noted the absence of any mechanism in the existing system to reduce marks for lack of integrity or professional misconduct, stating that such critical traits are left unaccounted. - Mechanical Allocation for Years of Practice:
It questioned whether mere registration for 20+ years should fetch full marks, even if the advocate was not in active practice. - Judicial Time Burden:
The Bench flagged the impracticality of expecting judges to scrutinize large volumes of judgments and publications submitted by each candidate. - Disadvantages for Trial Court Lawyers:
The judgment emphasized that senior advocate designation should not be restricted to High Courts and Supreme Court practitioners, noting that:
“Even such an advocate [from Trial/District Courts] can have ability, standing at the Bar, special knowledge or experience in law…” - Secret Ballot Voting:
While the Indira Jaising judgments limited the use of secret ballots, the Court considered reinstating it to ensure judges could express views freely without external influence.
Submissions and Responses:
- Attorney General for India acknowledged flaws in the current framework and supported retention of applications, while questioning the necessity of interviews and impracticality of reviewing voluminous materials.
- Solicitor General of India argued that the Permanent Committee dilutes the statutory intent, urged for mandatory secret ballot, and contended that the present marking system does not reflect an advocate’s true standing.
- High Courts of Delhi, Karnataka, Punjab & Haryana, and Madhya Pradesh provided feedback suggesting discontinuation or reduction of interviews, inclusion of integrity as a formal criterion, fixed intervals for designation, and fair representation of trial court lawyers.
- Ms. Indira Jaising, petitioner in the original case, opposed the review but agreed with modifying the current framework under paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1. She supported retaining interaction (instead of interview), proposed explicit integrity checks, and inclusion of a broader set of evaluation parameters like mentoring and domain-specific expertise.
Conclusion and Direction:
Citing paragraph 45 of its decision, the Bench directed the Registrar (Judicial) to place a copy of the judgment before the Chief Justice of India. It will now be for a larger Bench to decide whether the concerns raised merit substantive revision of the Indira Jaising guidelines.
The Court reiterated:
“It is only and only the most deserving and the very best who would be bestowed the honour and dignity [of Senior Advocate designation].”
