he Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the weightage given to experience and publications while designating lawyers as Senior Advocates. (Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India)
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Aravind Kumar, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah was hearing arguments of original petitioner-in-person, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, in the senior designations matter.
“There is a thought process in the bar that those who have served 30 years should have to go through all this. That those with up to 30 years experience be given extra marks,” she submitted .
“Is this not an over-weightage to the number of years? 1/5th of the total marks based on years of practice?” Justice Kaul remarked.
Jaising responded saying that litigants need the expertise of experienced counsel, but pointed out that the above suggestion was one primarily being pressed by the Supreme Court Bar Assocation (SCBA) in their application in the matter.
On the weightage given to publications of lawyers, Justice Kaul remarked,
“Even if there are publications, there has to be some quality…There are many eminent counsel, who have not written before and become seniors. Should there be such a high percentage of 15 per cent?”
Jaising agreed on the point of quality of publications, but added that nothing stopped the concerned judges from evaluating them.
“Everybody may not have the best oral skills, but may be a good writer,” she said.
The Supreme Court was hearing several pleas seeking the designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court and High Courts without delay. In its 2017 decision in Indira Jaising, the top court had laid down criteria for Senior designations, applicable to all courts.
As per the guidelines, a CDSA (Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates) would be made for each court.
All applications for designation would go to the Permanent Committee comprising the Chief Justice, two senior most judges, the Attorney General/Advocate General and an eminent member of the bar nominated by the other four members.