[Senior Designations] Is voting by secret ballot on every candidate discriminatory? Indira Jaising seeks clarification from Supreme Court

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising has moved the Supreme Court seeking a clarification on whether voting by secret ballot on each and every potential Senior designation is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of its earlier judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India. .The application filed in Jaising's 2017 case stated that the High Courts of Delhi and Punjab & Haryana have designated lawyers as Senior Advocates in a manner contrary to the 2017 judgment. Even after marks are assigned to a candidate by the Committee set up under the respective High Court Senior Designation Rules, each and every candidate was put to vote by the Full Court, it was pointed out. Consequently, even those who obtained the requisite cut-off marks decided upon by the High Court could not get designated for not obtaining the required number of votes, Jaising added..One small step towards transparency: Indira Jaising on the Senior Designations judgment."It is humbly submitted that this frustrates the very purpose of having a committee, a marking system and cut off marks and brings back the subjective element in the matter of designation," the application stated.Jaising further submitted that the process of designation is a selection of those who are worthy of designation and such merit is not be decided on the basis of the Full Court vote, since this is not an election to an office. The 2017 judgment of this Supreme Court also makes it clear that voting is to be resorted to only if unavoidable, she contended. .Further, Jaising submitted that when every candidate is put to vote and that too by secret ballot with no discussion, "it is obvious that the decision to designate is not based on the merit of the candidate but on the personal preferences of the judges who vote in favour of or against a candidate."."If voting is the decisive factor as it seems to be, the marking system as laid down in the above-mentioned objective criteria table becomes of no consequence. This is evident from the following chart which indicated that even those who obtained the cut off marks did not get the requisite number of votes and hence were not designated by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi," the application stated. .Apart from a clarification on this aspect, the application prayed for the Court to decide what should be the uniform minimum number of marks to be obtained by a candidate to be designated as a senior advocate. Another prayer made was to direct that advertisements inviting applications are issued periodically twice a year..Justifying the need for a clarification on the issue, the application stated,"The issue is critical to the development of a free and competent bar which will be in a position to assist the Court in a dispassionate and objective manner."