 |
|
The Supreme Court of India has abolished the 100-point assessment mechanism used for designating Senior Advocates, concluding that the system, implemented under the Indira Jaising judgments of 2017 and 2023, had not achieved its intended goals of uniformity, transparency, and objectivity. A bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and SVN Bhatti determined that the point-based format, which aimed to evaluate the calibre, standing at the Bar, and experience in law of applicant advocates, had proven to be ineffective and even detrimental to the designation process. The Court emphasized that the directives issued in the Indira Jaising judgments were always intended to be subject to modification based on practical experience, highlighting paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1 and paragraph 51 of Indira Jaising-2 as evidence of this flexibility. Consequently, paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising-1, which introduced the point system, has been deemed unenforceable. The original objective of the point-based system was to standardize and objectify the designation process across the Supreme Court and High Courts, ensuring that only the most deserving and meritorious advocates received the prestigious designation, thereby curbing lobbying and canvassing efforts. However, the Court identified several critical deficiencies within the system that undermined its intended purpose. The structure of the Permanent Committees, comprising the Chief Justice, the two senior-most judges, the Attorney General (or Advocate General in states), and a senior member of the Bar, was a significant point of contention. These committees were tasked with interviewing applicants and assigning scores based on various criteria, presenting these assessments to the Full Court for final decision-making. The Court observed that, despite being technically non-binding, the committee's assessments effectively functioned as recommendations, thereby concentrating undue influence in the hands of a select few.
A primary concern raised by the Court was the involvement of Bar members in the scoring process. The Court questioned the statutory validity of granting point-assignment powers to Bar members, citing Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, which vests the power to designate solely with the Courts. The Court argued that participation of Bar members in the Full Court's decision-making process, as outlined in Sub-section (2) of Section 16, was legally unsustainable. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the potential for impropriety and the discomfort experienced by Bar members when assessing their peers, especially during interviews. The duration of practice scoring was another aspect criticized by the Court. The point system awarded up to 20 points based solely on years of practice – 20 points for over 20 years and 10 or more for 10 to 20 years. The Court argued that longevity in the profession did not necessarily equate to merit or standing, potentially benefiting advocates with long but unremarkable careers. The Court noted that many members of the Bar maintain a presence in the profession for extended periods without substantial appearances or significant contributions. The Court deemed the number of years spent in practice an insufficient criterion for designation. The Court also expressed doubts about the efficacy of short interviews, which accounted for 25 out of 100 points, as a fair and accurate method for assessing an applicant's personality and suitability. These brief interactions, often lasting only a few minutes, made it challenging to gauge a candidate's qualifications adequately and could inadvertently reward applicants who excelled at interviews, regardless of their overall reputation or competence. The Court emphasized that such interactions provided only a superficial view of the applicant. The Court stated that subjecting an Advocate with established standing at the Bar to an interview by senior judges and Bar members violated the dignity of the profession.
The Court also scrutinized the requirement for applicants to submit extensive volumes of reported and unreported judgments and written submissions, which accounted for 50 points. The Court questioned the practicality of attributing specific arguments or the quality of submissions to individual advocates, particularly given that submissions are often collaborative efforts. It also emphasized the significant time burden placed on judges and committee members, who already bear substantial judicial and administrative responsibilities. The Court rejected the suggestion of outsourcing this task to court staff or research bodies like the Centre for Research and Planning (CRP), asserting that such a critical responsibility could not be delegated. While acknowledging the value of legal publications in assessing an advocate's standing, the Court found it unreasonable to assign specific points (out of 5) to publications. The Court stated that while authoring articles, theses on complex legal issues, or books on legal subjects could enhance an advocate's standing, it was unjust to assign specific points based on such work. Writing articles or books was not deemed an essential criterion for designation but rather an additional consideration. Most importantly, the Court highlighted the absence of a mechanism to evaluate an applicant's character, honesty, and integrity – qualities deemed fundamental to the designation of a Senior Advocate. The Court considered this omission a critical flaw in the framework. The Court concluded that the point-based assessment, as implemented, was subjective and lacked objectivity. In summary, the Supreme Court's decision to scrap the point-based system underscores its commitment to ensuring a fair, transparent, and dignified process for designating Senior Advocates, one that prioritizes merit, integrity, and character over arbitrary metrics and procedural complexities. The court recognized inherent problems in relying upon a complex and formalistic assessment system to determine the qualities necessary for senior designation and opted for a return to a more holistic and qualitative approach that takes into account a broad spectrum of relevant factors.
The ruling in Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr., cited as 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 555, represents a significant recalibration in the process of selecting Senior Advocates, moving away from a seemingly objective but ultimately flawed numerical evaluation to a more nuanced and qualitative assessment. The Supreme Court’s decision recognizes that the prestige and responsibility associated with the designation of Senior Advocate cannot be accurately quantified through a points system. Instead, the designation should reflect a holistic evaluation of an advocate's competence, ethical standards, contributions to the legal community, and overall standing within the legal profession. The Court's concern about the lack of emphasis on character, honesty, and integrity is particularly noteworthy. These are attributes that are essential for maintaining the integrity of the legal system and upholding the principles of justice. By acknowledging the limitations of the point-based system and prioritizing these fundamental qualities, the Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of ethical conduct and professional responsibility in the selection of Senior Advocates. This decision will likely have a lasting impact on the legal profession in India, encouraging a more comprehensive and thoughtful approach to the designation process. The Supreme Court's decision highlights the importance of regularly evaluating and refining legal procedures to ensure they are aligned with the principles of fairness, transparency, and justice. The Court's willingness to revisit its earlier directives and adapt to the realities of practical experience reflects a commitment to continuous improvement and a dedication to upholding the integrity of the legal system. This decision serves as a reminder that the pursuit of justice requires not only rigorous adherence to legal principles but also a willingness to adapt and evolve in response to changing circumstances and evolving understanding. By prioritizing a holistic and qualitative assessment, the Supreme Court has taken a significant step towards ensuring that the designation of Senior Advocate continues to be a mark of excellence, integrity, and service to the legal profession and the pursuit of justice.