After the Supreme Court drew back the curtains to let the sunshine in on the secretive Collegium system of judicial appointments, the apex court repeated the act of transparency on Thursday by making the procedure for conferment of ‘senior advocate’ designation to lawyers uniform and objective to ensure that only the deserving will get the coveted status.
So far, the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts had sole discretion over whom to grant the senior gown. The reasons for conferring this honour have often remained opaque.
The status of senior advocate commands enormous respect from courts and, as far as the litigant is concerned, it is synonymous with considerable fee charged.
“Legal practice in India, though [it is] a booming profession, success has come to a few select members of the profession, the vast majority of them being designated senior advocates. The issues are highly contentious raising question of considerable magnitude so far as the Indian Bar and in fact the country’s legal system is concerned,” the judgment by a Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Rohinton F. Nariman and Navin Sinha observed.
Indira Jaising, herself a senior advocate designated by the Bombay High Court in 1986, had challenged the selection system as arbitrary and opaque.
She had argued that there were many lawyers who fought civil rights and environment protection cases, mostly pro bono or free of charge. However, there has hardly been any recognition for their professional abilities.
Now, 56 years after the Advocates Act of 1961 gave the judiciary powers to confer ‘senior advocate’ distinction to lawyers in recognition of their “ability or special knowledge in law”, the Supreme Court has framed a series of guidelines to make the process transparent.
“The sole yardstick by which we propose to introduce a set of guidelines to govern the matter is the need for maximum objectivity in the process so as to ensure that it is only the most deserving and the very best who would be bestowed the honour and dignity,” Justice Gogoi, who authored the judgment, observed.
The court held that the credentials of everyone who seeks to be designated as a senior advocate or whom the Full Court suo motu decides to confer the honour must be subject to the “utmost strict process of scrutiny leaving no scope for any doubt or dissatisfaction.”
For the first time, the apex court recorded that the pro bono work done by lawyers would be a major consideration for grant of senior advocate status.
The Bench directed the setting up of a permanent committee headed by the Chief Justice of India and consisting of two senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court or the high courts. The panel will have the Attorney General of India or the Advocate General of the State in case of a high court. The fifth member of the panel would be nominated from the Bar.
The committee would have a permanent secretariat to vet the applications and publish the candidatures on the website of the Supreme Court or the high court concerned, inviting suggestions.
The permanent panel would examine each candidate based on the data provided by the secretariat and interview them. It would make its overall assessment on the basis of a point-based format.
The names shortlisted by the permanent panel would be placed before the Full Court, which will take the final decision.
All cases that have not been favourably considered by the Full Court may be reviewed/reconsidered after two years. The Full Court may dis-entitle a senior advocate in case he is found guilty of misconduct.
