This article has been written by Akanksha Mishra, 4th semester of the BA LLB from Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University.
Indira Jaising Vs. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General
CITATION: AIR 2023 SC 3009
DECIDED ON: 12.05.2023
THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BENCH: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Aravind Kumar, JJ.
KEYS (RELEVANT PROVISIONS): Advocates Act 1961, Supreme Court Rules 2013
Facts:
The case of Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India involved the issue of designation of Senior Advocates. The Supreme Court of India was tasked with fine-tuning the norms laid down in a previous judgment from 2017 regarding the process of designating Senior Advocates. The Court emphasized the importance of simplifying the process to ensure the designation of more meritorious candidates who can provide better assistance to litigants and the Courts.
The case also discussed various aspects related to the designation of Senior Advocates, such as the role of lawyers, the quality of synopses filed in Court, the specialization of advocates in different fields of law, the importance of diversity in the legal profession, and the modifications suggested in the categories for designation criteria.
Issues:
The main issues in the case of Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India revolved around the process of designating Senior Advocates.
The case raised concerns about the existing system of designating Senior Advocates, highlighting flaws in its lack of objectivity, fairness, and transparency. The petitioner sought to replace the system of voting with a permanent Selection Committee to ensure a more transparent and merit-based process.
The case discussed the criteria for designating Senior Advocates, including factors such as ability, experience, standing at the Bar, special knowledge, and experience in law. There were debates on the relevance of publications, advocacy skills, and the role of Senior Advocates in contributing intellectually to the development of the law.
The Supreme Court aimed to fine-tune the norms laid down in a previous judgment from 2017 to simplify the process of designating Senior Advocates. The Court sought to ensure that the process results in the designation of more meritorious candidates who can provide better assistance to litigants and the Courts.
Contentions of the parties:
Ms. Indira Jaising, the petitioner, argued that the existing system of designating Senior Advocates lacked objectivity, fairness, and transparency. She advocated for the replacement of the voting system with a permanent Selection Committee to ensure a more transparent and merit-based process.
The Supreme Court Bar Association and other parties contended that the criteria for designation, particularly the emphasis on publications, may not accurately reflect the advocacy skills of practicing advocates. They raised concerns about the practicality and relevance of publications as a criterion for designation.
The Union of India sought to reopen the 2017 Judgment, but the Court clarified that the current proceedings were focused on fine-tuning the existing norms rather than reviewing the entire judgment. The Union’s role in the proceedings was questioned, considering the representation of the Bar Council of India, the representative body of lawyers.
Legal provisions used by the court:
In the case of Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India, the Court relied on several legal provisions to make its decisions regarding the designation of Senior Advocates.
Advocates Act, 1961:
The Court referred to Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which provides the framework for the designation of Senior Advocates in India. This section empowers the Supreme Court and High Courts to designate advocates as Senior Advocates based on certain criteria.
Supreme Court Rules, 2013:
The Court specifically mentioned Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which outlines the power of the Supreme Court to designate advocates as Senior Advocates with their consent. This rule is relevant to the process of designating Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court.
2017 Judgment:
The Court extensively relied on the 2017 Judgment in the case, which laid down guidelines to bring greater transparency and objectivity to the process of designating Senior Advocates. These guidelines provided the basis for the Court’s decisions on refining the designation process.
Observations and decisions by the supreme court:
The Court observed that the existing system of designating Senior Advocates lacked objectivity, fairness, and transparency. There were concerns raised about the criteria for designation, particularly regarding the emphasis on publications and the practicality of this criterion in assessing advocacy skills.
The Court noted the need to fine-tune the norms laid down in the 2017 Judgment to simplify the process of designating Senior Advocates and ensure the recognition of meritorious candidates who can provide better assistance to litigants and the Courts.
The Supreme Court decided to enhance the number of points in certain categories, deducting points from others to balance the criteria for designation. The Court aimed to refine the process to address concerns raised by the parties and improve the overall transparency and objectivity of the designation process.
The Court emphasized that the power of suo motu designation by the Full Court would not be taken away and could continue to be exercised for exceptional and eminent advocates through a consensus by the Full Court. The Court also clarified that the current proceedings were focused on fine-tuning the existing norms rather than reviewing the entire judgment.
The Supreme Court’s decision in the case aimed to address the shortcomings in the existing system of designating Senior Advocates and improve the process to ensure a fair and merit-based approach to recognizing legal excellence in India.
