RECENTLY, IN A QUIET YET SEISMIC DEVELOPMENT, the Supreme Court has fundamentally reversed the manner for the designation of Senior Advocates. On May 13, 2025, a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice Abhay S. Oka delivered its decision in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2025) (“Indira Jaising III”).
The Court directed for non-implementation of Paragraph 73.7 of the 2017 guidelines laid down in Indira Jaising I, as subsequently modified in Indira Jaising II (2023), which had introduced a structured, point-based process for the conferment of “Silk” status. While the point table in Paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising I quantified the merit and suitability of candidates for designation in accordance with Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Court in Indira Jaising III discarded it and abandoned the constitution of the Permanent Committee, comprising the Chief Justice, the two senior-most judges, the Attorney General (or Advocate General), and a senior member of the Bar.
In doing so, the Court has effectively reversed the very system it took a decade to build.
What is senior designation?
Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 classifies advocates into two categories: Senior Advocates and other advocates. Whereas, Section 16 (2) empowers the Supreme Court or a High Court to designate an advocate as a Senior Advocate if, in its opinion, the advocate, by virtue of ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law, merits such distinction. Moreover, Section 23(5)(i) accords Senior Advocates the right of pre-audience over other advocates.
In effect, these provisions create a hierarchy among litigants, those represented by Senior Advocates with the privilege of pre-audience, and those represented by other advocates. In such a scenario, it becomes incumbent upon the Courts to strike a balance, either by doing away with the system or by democratising the system of Senior Designation.
In Indira Jaising-I, the Supreme Court chose to do the latter. It upheld the validity of Section 16 by democratising the process of Senior Designation and ensuring that privilege of pre-audience is not cloistered within an elite circle.
How the Supreme Court mitigated the flaws by Indira Jaising- I and II
In 2015, Senior Advocate Ms. Indira Jaising filed a writ petition challenging the unguided system of conferring Silk by the Supreme Court and the High Courts. She also sought that powers under Section 16 (2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 be exercised through objective, and transparent criteria.
Thereafter, a bench led by Justice Ranjan Gogoi upheld the validity of Section 16 but introduced guidelines, which mandated the constitution of a Permanent Committee and Secretariat to invite applications and assess candidates based on a point-based system given in para 73.7.
The guideline introduced in Indira Jaising-I provided for the following point table:
20 points for years of practice
40 points for reported/unreported judgments reflecting legal formulations
15 points for publications
25 points for personal interview
Although the power of the Full Court under Indira Jaising I and II remained intact, a reasonable check was introduced to temper the broad discretion it previously exercised. The Guidelines mandated a structured application process for designation, with each application evaluated against objective criteria.
The resulting assessment i.e., the points assigned by the Permanent Committee, was then placed before the Full Court for a final decision. Pertinently, the marks carried a certain weightage owing to the stature of the members in the Permanent Committee. It ensured that meritorious candidates were not overlooked in the exercise of discretion.
Since 2017 and till the most recent round in 2024, the designation process by the Supreme Court and various High Courts has seen a significant rise in both the number of applicants and those designated. In one year alone, the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court together conferred the status of Senior Advocate on nearly 170 advocates. This expanding pool indicates a clear move toward the democratisation of the process.
It is a movement towards ensuring that the benefit of Section 23(5)(i) is extended beyond the elite few, reaching even the most marginalised litigants. Naturally, this has also made it easier for litigants to engage Senior Advocates for their cases, owing to the increased availability.
The extent of objectivity and transparency introduced after Indira Jaising-I and II guidelines is evident from the fact that the Supreme Court and all the High Courts adopted the practice of publishing the list of candidates and inviting suggestions from stakeholders. Some High Courts, such as the Madhya Pradesh High Court were in fact a step further in uploading the complete application forms of candidates for verification of the details from stakeholders.
The controversy leading to Indira Jaising-III
The controversy over the process of Senior Advocate designation was reignited following allegations of misconduct by a recently designated Senior Advocate, who was found to have made material suppressions in a case. On the submissions made by the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court ventured to revisit the existing guidelines.
On February 20, 2025, a Division Bench comprising Justices Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan flagged doubts regarding Indira Jaising I and II and the attention of the Chief Justice was invited to place the matter before the Bench of appropriate strength. Subsequently, the Chief Justice constituted a three-judge Bench comprising Justices Oka, Bhuyan, and S.V.N. Bhatti.
Indira Jaising-III: Discretion in disguise of purported objectivity?
From the outset, the Court in Indira Jaising-I was aware that its guidelines for designating Senior Advocates were not exhaustive. Paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-I expressly allowed for future reconsideration or modifications that could be made with the benefit of experience. The experience gained was reflected in Indira Jaising-II, where the 15 points originally assigned to publications were reallocated to judgments, and the submission of five case synopses was permitted to offer more pragmatic insight into a candidate’s work.
But during the hearings in Indira Jaising-II, the Union of India attempted to undo Indira Jaising-I, by filing an application that would have rendered its core principles obsolete. The three-judge bench, led by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, rejected the attempt of the Union by clarifying that the remit is limited and the judgment could only be fine-tuned, not reviewed. The Court further identified three central aspects of Indira Jaising-I, which were beyond the purview of Paragraph 74 — a Permanent Committee, objective criteria and voting in exceptional circumstances.
However, in Indira Jaising-III, the Supreme Court revisited the guidelines of Senior Designation, citing Paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-I and Paragraph 51 of Indira Jaising-II as the basis for reconsideration. The stated aim was to enhance objectivity in the process through experience gained. However, a careful examination shows that the judgment effectively takes the process back to the regime that existed before Indira Jaising-I.
Paradoxically, in its attempt to render the process more objective, the Court eliminated the very criteria that lent it transparency and objectivity. The deletion of the point-based system clearly reflects a different view from that taken in Indira Jaising II, where the Court had expressly held that reconsidering the objective parameters was beyond its remit, given the mandate of Paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising I. By taking a contrary view from the earlier coordinate bench decisions, the present judgment appears to contravene the principle laid down by the Constitution Bench in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra v. State of Maharashtra (2004).
For striking down the point-based evaluation system, the Court has reasoned that metrics, including years of practice, reported or unreported judgments, and publications, are not definitive indicators of an advocate’s standing at the Bar, experience in law, or special knowledge. However, in rejecting these criteria, the Court failed to observe any other workable alternative.
With respect to the exclusion of the Permanent Committee from the decision-making process, the Court’s reasoning appears to be rooted in its composition, specifically, the presence of the Attorney General and a senior member of the Bar. However, the Court has failed to realise that in recent times, advocates have increasingly adopted practice outside the traditional courtroom setting, engaging primarily in arbitration, or advisory roles. As a result, sitting judges may have a minimal opportunity to observe and assess such advocates.
In case of designation by the Supreme Court, such an assessment by judges becomes even more difficult in light of the fact that judges of the Supreme Court have shorter tenures, and thus, may have minimal opportunity of knowing the Bar. Thus, the involvement of the Attorney General and a Senior Member of the Bar, who, along with other members of the Permanent Committee, examined the applications based on the point system, was essentially to assist the Full Court.
In Indira Jaising-III, the Court, in as many words, has restored the discretionary power of the Full Court. The implications of this are clearly reflected in the rules framed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh for such designations. As per the newly introduced rules, the entire discretion vests with the Full Court, which is now responsible to evaluate the application form. However, there is no uniform parameter for the Full Court to make a decision. The absence of uniformity will attract subjectivity and exercise of discretion by individual judges in marking, if at all marking is resorted by the Full Court in internal discussion.
It is quintessential to highlight that owing to the objectivity brought by Indira Jaising-I and Indira Jaising-II, designation processes which were in gross violation of the Guidelines became subject of judicial review to an extent. For instance, in Raman Gandhi vs Registrar General, High Court of Delhi (2025), a two-judge Bench comprising Justices Oka and Bhuyan scrutinised the recent designation process undertaken by the Delhi High Court, where 70 out of 302 applicants were designated as Senior Advocates. Upon examining the affidavit filed by the senior member of the Bar who was part of the Permanent Committee, along with the Committee’s report, the Supreme Court directed the Registrar General to resubmit the names of rejected candidates to the Permanent Committee for reconsideration. The Court’s intervention in Raman Gandhi indicates that Guidelines in Indira Jaising-I remain workable. It provides recourse as in this case to identify patent irregularity.
Lastly, the Court also failed to appreciate the submissions of the Attorney General, who in fact suggested that Indira Jaising-I has created an “aspiration class” i.e., advocates from middle class backgrounds who are now applying for designation and are being conferred with the same.
The submission of the Attorney General indicates that Indira Jaising- I and II had led to democratisation of the process as it was intended. It has allowed the first-generation lawyers, women advocates, advocates from marginalised communities to be considered for senior designation in light of an objective assessment.
In reversing the process put in place in Indira Jaising I and II, the Supreme Court has regressed the process back to the earlier regime. It has retreated from a rare moment of introspection and institutional transparency. Indira Jaising-I opened a crack in the closed doors of a profession long dominated by legacy, gate keeping and social capital. For once, merit was measurable. Indira Jaising-III, however, is a back step from transparency and objectivity – it takes away much more than what it aims to give.
Note: One of the co-founders of The Leaflet were petitioners in the three decisions discussed. The views expressed by the authors in this piece are not necessarily a reflection of the co-founders’.