New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its verdict over senior designations of lawyers and framing of code of conduct for advocates-on-record for a smooth functioning of the justice system.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih said a two-judge bench couldn't deal with the issues arising out of the 2017 judgement which devised the process for grant of senior designation to lawyers and was delivered by a three-judge bench.
"We will note down the suggestions of the amicus curiae (S Muralidhar), solicitor general Tushar Mehta and senior advocate Indira Jaising (who initially filed the petition in the apex court) on the senior designation and put them before the Chief Justice of India for taking a decision…,” it said.
A erstwhile bench of three former judges, namely, Justices Ranjan Gogoi, R F Nariman and Navin Sinha, delivered its verdict on Jaising's plea on October 12, 2017 while issuing a slew of guidelines including setting up of a permanent committee led by the Chief Justice of India to accord senior designation to lawyers.
It said aside from the CJI, the committee would include the senior-most apex court judge or a high court judge, as the case may be in the committee. The three-judge bench also proposed setting up of a permanent secretariat to collate all information of a prospective candidate to confer senior designation by the permanent committee.
However, certain directions such as holding of an interview for grant of senior designation and grant of 25 marks for the interview were hotly debated. During the hearing, the solicitor general suggested a review of the senior advocate designation process, highlighting concerns about the integrity assessment of candidates.
Concerns were raised about the weightage given to interviews in the selection process, with fears of potential manipulation and lack of equal opportunity. Jaising argued the process should focus on competence rather than honour and called for eliminating judicial lobbying in designations.
Muralidhar recommended replacing the permanent committee’s subjective assessments with a more transparent system where all judges participate in awarding marks. The court acknowledged the concerns and expressed openness to reforms, ensuring fair opportunities and diversity in the designation process.
"Ultimately the purpose is to ensure that no undeserving people should be designated as a senior lawyer and nobody who deserves should be excluded. We are only going to flag those issues in our order,” said Justice Oka.
On the code of conduct of AoRs, the bench underscored the need for clear guidelines and rejected the notion that an AoR should function merely as a postman. The top court conducts AoR examination for lawyers and only AoRs are empowered to file pleadings in the apex court.
Amicus curiae Muralidhar suggested amendments to the Supreme Court rules delineating roles and responsibilities of every lawyer involved in the process of filing a case to ensure accuracy in pleadings in the case. Jaising was critical of awarding 25 marks for the interview to designate a lawyer as a senior saying it was wrong.
"But my reasons are different… It is not about dignity but rather having such a high weightage on an interview leaves scope for manipulation. I am sorry to be blunt,” she said.
In 2017, the top court formulated guidelines for itself and high courts governing the exercise of designating lawyers as seniors and said all matters relating to the designation of senior advocates in the apex court and high courts should be dealt with by a "Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates". Section 16 of the Advocates Act deals with senior designation of lawyers.
