The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on reconsidering the guidelines laid down in the 2017 and 2023 Indira Jaising judgments for conferring senior advocate designations. A three-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and SVN Bhatti heard arguments from Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, the petitioner in the case, and other stakeholders. The Court’s decision is expected to address concerns over transparency, integrity, and the evaluation process for senior designations.
Key Issues Under Scrutiny
The Court is examining several contentious aspects of the current senior designation process, including:
1. Interview Weightage: The allocation of 25 out of 100 marks for interviews has been criticized as disproportionate and prone to manipulation.
2. Integrity Assessment: Concerns were raised about the inability to deduct marks for integrity issues under the existing framework.
3. Uniformity Across High Courts: The lack of a standardized process before the 2017 judgment has also been flagged.
4. Secret Ballots: The use of secret ballots during Full Court deliberations has been questioned, with arguments favoring open discussions and consensus-building.
Indira Jaising’s Proposals
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising proposed several reforms to improve the designation process:
- Cutoff Marks: She suggested adopting a system similar to the UPSC, where cutoff marks are determined based on the average scores of candidates.
- Reduced Interview Weightage: Jaising recommended reducing interview marks to 10 or 15, citing minimal weightage in public sector recruitment.
- Integrity and Reputation: She emphasized incorporating integrity and reputation into the evaluation criteria, including mentorship, pro bono work, and audited accounts.
- Transparency: Jaising called for clear, published guidelines to ensure candidates know what is expected of them.
Court’s Observations
Justice Oka highlighted the challenges of assessing a candidate’s contribution to judgments and domain expertise. He noted that written submissions often exceed oral arguments, making it difficult to evaluate a lawyer’s true input. The bench also questioned the logic of assigning significant weight to interviews, which may not accurately reflect a candidate’s legal competence.
Stakeholder Arguments
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta opposed adopting foreign practices, advocating for an “Indianized” approach to jurisprudence.
- Advocate Mathews Nedumpara challenged the constitutionality of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, arguing that the senior designation system is discriminatory and limits access to justice. He also criticized the separate dress code for senior advocates, claiming it violates Article 14.
What’s Next?
The Supreme Court’s judgment, once delivered, is expected to bring significant changes to the senior designation process, ensuring greater transparency, fairness, and inclusivity. The decision will also address concerns about integrity and the role of interviews in evaluating candidates.
Case Title: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
For more updates on this developing story, visit Legal Chariot .
Post a Comment