Senior Designations: Supreme Court upholds interview criteria but reduces points for publications; secret ballot voting should be exception

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld the interview criteria followed by High Courts and the Supreme Court for designating lawyers as Senior Advocates but reduced the points given for the number of publication as a criterion [Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India]..A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Aravind Kumar also ruled that voting by judges for conferring the gown should not be by secret ballot except in exceptional circumstances."We have upheld interview criteria as it would enable more holistic assessment. We have sought to make it workable and thus kept it at a streamlined number in context of number of candidates. We are not reducing the marks in this category," the Court said.On voting by secret ballot, the Court said the following: "We have set forth the different aspects on which we were urged. First is voting by secret ballot - we have said in view of permanent committee it would serve no purpose. It has resulted in exclusion of names from final lists. It is an honour to be conferred. Comments by a judge can have deleterious effects, voting by secret ballot has to be exception not rule, with reasons stated. It will be difficult to assign cutoffs," the order said. The Court said 15 points for publications was too high, and reduced the same to 5. "Most practicing advocates find very little time to write academic articles. In any case, academic publications require a different aptitude. However, given that Senior Advocates are expected to make nuanced and sophisticated submissions, academic knowledge of the law is an important prerequisite. We believe that confining these criteria merely to the authorship of academic articles would not be enough."The Court said that academic research and writing ability can be considered by the committee concerned."Senior Counsel have a duty to leading and be an example to the rest of the Bar, especially younger members. They are also required to contribute to academic teaching, writing, and research, and to the process of continuing legal education," the Court said..Pertinently, the Court said that the exercise of designating Seniors should be carried out at least once a year by the High Courts and the Supreme Court."The exercise should be carried out at least once a year. We have said that there is no bar on younger advocates on applying," the bench said.The Court also directed that pending applications for senior gown have to be considered as per the modified directions of the top court in today's judgment.Liberty was also given to amend the applications. "Existing ones have to comply with the guidelines we have laid out, and we ask that this be done expeditiously. Time given to update applications. We hope it serves the purpose of serving litigants," the Court said..The verdict came in pleas calling for a relook at the guidelines for designation of lawyers as Senior Advocates. The bench had reserved its judgment in the case on March 16 this year.The Central government in its modification application had said that the new system has resulted in 'dilution' of the esteem, elegance and dignity that come with process of conferring designations.It had, therefore, urged for reverting to the old system of performance-based evaluation by full courts followed by a secret ballot vote. The Supreme Court Bar Association had asked Supreme Court to remove points for interview and publications. The Court during the hearings had reiterated that some amount of discretion needs to be left with the full courts of High Courts and the Supreme Court while conferring senior govwn. In its 2017 decision in Indira Jaising, the top court had laid down criteria for Senior designations, applicable to all courts.As per the guidelines, there would be a CDSA (Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates) for each court. All applications for designation would go to the Permanent Committee comprising the Chief Justice, two senior most judges, the Attorney General/Advocate General and an eminent member of the bar nominated by the other four members.The Bench had noted on February 16 that there may be different issues in different High Courts, before adding that the issues arising out of the judgment's concluding paragraph would be taken up first.The paragraph in question leaves it open for the existing mechanism to be 'revisited' based on experience..The marks removed from the publication category were allotted to heads under reportable judgments, pro bono work and domain expertise. The Court clarified that only reportable judgments and not orders would count, and pro bono and other work would have to be substantive rather than just a mere appearance.Due consideration must be given to the quality of synopses as well as diversification of work with respect to practice before tribunals, it was stated. Pertinently, the Court said diversity must be encouraged particularly among women and first-generation lawyers."This would encourage meritorious advocates who will come into the field knowing that there is scope to rise to the top. The profession has seen a paradigm shift over a period of time, particularly with the advent of newer law schools such as National Law Universities. The legal profession is no longer considered as a family profession. Instead, there are newer entrants from all parts of the country and with different backgrounds. Such newcomers must be encouraged.".Read more about the earlier hearings and applications in the matter by SCAORA, the SCBA and the Central government, here.Note: An earlier version of the piece incorrectly stated that the publication criteria was done away with; the error is regretted.[Read judgment]