Senior Designation

Senior Designation

Advocates with low scores made senior

Supreme Court guidelines not followed.

March 24,2019

Senior Designation

Kerala advocate questions CJI about senior advocate designation.

Suggests Supreme Court guidelines not followed.

March 22,2019

Case update

[Read judgment] Calcutta High Court orders amendments in senior designation guidelines

The Petitioner Debasish Roy had argued that the guidelines framed by the High Court were in conflict with the said Advocates Act, 1961 and Supreme Court’s judgment dated October 12, 2017 in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India. On the issue of pro bono work, the High Court held that paragraph 14 of the guidelines that provides only pro bono services done by those empanelled with the State Legal Services is unnecessary.

January 31,2019

Case update

Senior Designation: Bombay High Court invites stakeholder suggestions on names of applicants

This is a first exercise being undertaken by the Bombay High Court for conferring the distinction of senior advocate after the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment dated October 12, 2017 in  Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, that ruled that the process of designation would be dealt with by a Permanent Committee, comprising the Chief Justice of India (or the respective Chief Justice of High Court), two senior judges, Attorney General (or the respective Advocate General) and an eminent jurist based on a “100 Points Index” to ensure non-discrimination and transparency.

January 31,2019

Case update

Four advocates approach Karnataka High Court challenging conferment of senior designation by the latter

The process of selecting Senior Advocates ultimately turned out to be an exercise in choosing junior advocates, claim the Petitioners. Further, the foremost criterion governing the designation — namely, the standing at the Bar — was given a complete go-by and was totally ignored, according to the Petitioners. Many of the senior members of the Bar who had applied for designation and who enjoy very good reputation and command extensive and varied practice were left out, while many advocates of much higher standing and much better credentials were not recommended and were not designated as Senior Advocates and their claims were totally overlooked, write the Petitioners.

January 30,2019


Law-merick: Why throw 'Gold Mohurs' at every penny?

While various High Courts framed rules based on the ruling, those who loved the "square gown" started thinking of ways and means to add up more points or marks to their tally. Suddenly, some aspirants became public-spirited and began volunteering for pro bono work, while others who struggled to draft a praecipe began submitting learned articles to legal journals, a feat inter alia achieved by engaging studious interns to do research and prepare draft articles!

January 30,2019

The Long Read

Supreme Court on senior designation

The Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates of the Supreme Court has been constituted pursuant to the judgement dated October 12, 2017 of the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising v. Secretary General Supreme Court. This judgement introduced the objective system for assessing the Advocates based on 100 Point Index with an emphasis on domain expertise and pro bono work.

January 19,2019

Independence of judiciary

End of ‘face value’ in senior designation

The Karnataka High Court example amply demonstrates that the new process of senior designation gives confidence to the young lawyers without ‘connections’ in the legal profession. It gives them hope that if they are deserving, no one can take away their opportunity to be one day considered for the senior designation. Conferral of this distinction has been duly democratised.

November 25,2018

Case update

[EXCLUSIVE] Centre sitting on Supreme Court diktat to publicise Section 377 judgment

The Union Government has not yet implemented the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India that required the Central Government to give wide-scale publicity to the Supreme Court judgment in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India.

November 15,2018

1 2
Scroll Up