The Supreme Court on Thursday raised serious concerns about the existing process for designating lawyers as Senior Advocates, highlighting several flaws in the system.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan referred the matter to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, suggesting that a larger bench might be necessary to review the issues raised.
Clarifying its position, the bench stated, “We do not intend to disrespect the binding precedents [in the Indira Jaising case], but we are recording our concerns so that the Chief Justice can determine if these doubts require further examination by a larger bench.”
One of the primary issues flagged by the Court was whether the designation process adequately evaluates a lawyer’s qualifications. The bench stressed that becoming a Senior Advocate is not a right but a privilege granted by the Supreme Court or High Court, with the lawyer’s consent. It also questioned whether a short interview accounting for 25% of the total score—was sufficient to assess a candidate’s suitability.
“The Permanent Committee is expected to make a comprehensive assessment based on a point-based system, yet no alternative evaluation method has been established,” the Court noted.
Integrity and fairness, the judges emphasized, are crucial qualities for Senior Advocates. The bench expressed concern over how the system currently handles applicants with questionable professional conduct.
“An advocate lacking integrity or fairness should not be considered for this distinction, as such qualities are fundamental to their standing at the bar,” the Court remarked.
It further pointed out a flaw in the evaluation criteria: there is no mechanism to reduce points if an applicant has a history of misconduct.
“Even if a candidate is widely known to lack integrity, they could still receive high marks based on their interview or general legal performance. The current process does not allow deductions on ethical grounds,” the Court observed.
Another issue raised was the extensive review process expected from senior judges. “Applicants submit numerous judgments, books, and articles they have authored. Should senior judges, including the Chief Justice, be required to spend significant time reviewing each submission? This is a matter that needs careful reconsideration,” the bench stated.
Concluding its observations, the Court emphasized the need for a reassessment of the entire selection process. “If the current system is flawed, can it truly serve as a reliable method for designating Senior Advocates?” the judges questioned.
Court also addressed the ongoing controversy involving Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, whose designation has come under scrutiny due to allegations of false statements in various cases. The matter has now been referred to the Chief Justice of India for a final decision.
“Regarding Rishi Malhotra’s designation, we leave it to the Hon’ble CJI to take a call,” Justice Oka remarked.
Previously, the Supreme Court had sought an explanation from Malhotra after an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) revealed that an appeal submitted under his direction had omitted key facts. This revelation ultimately prompted the Court to raise broader concerns about the Senior Advocate designation process.
In the same case, the Court also clarified the responsibilities of Advocates-on-Record under the Supreme Court Rules of 2013. It held that an AoR is directly accountable to the Court and cannot deflect responsibility onto clients or instructing lawyers when incorrect facts are presented.
“An AoR holds a unique position under the Rules and must exercise caution and diligence,” the Court asserted.
