On Tuesday, the Supreme Court unveiled fresh guidelines to streamline the process of conferring the designation of Senior Advocate upon lawyers.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and SVN Bhatti directed all High Courts to amend their existing rules in line with the Court’s latest judgment within four months.

The Court has done away with the existing marking system, emphasizing that the final decision on designations must rest with the Full Court of the respective High Courts or the Supreme Court. Applications submitted by eligible candidates, as vetted by the Permanent Secretariat, along with all supporting documents, will be placed before the Full Court for consideration. The Court observed that efforts should be made to reach decisions by consensus.

However, in cases where a consensus cannot be reached, the Court held that the matter must be decided democratically through voting. It left it to individual High Courts to determine whether a secret ballot is appropriate, based on the specifics of each case.

The Court also confirmed that the existing requirement of a minimum of 10 years of legal practice for eligibility remains unchanged. Advocates may continue to apply for designation, and such applications will be treated as their consent to be considered. Nonetheless, the Court noted that the Full Court retains the discretion to confer designation even in the absence of an application.

Importantly, the Court made it clear that individual judges are not permitted to recommend candidates for designation.

These directions stem from a case originally concerning a convict’s plea for remission in a kidnapping case. During the hearing, the Bench flagged issues of false pleadings filed by Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) and noted suppressed facts in the convict’s appeal.

This led to scrutiny of the conduct of Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra and prompted the Court to take up the larger issue of the designation process.

The existing framework for designating Senior Advocates was laid down in the 2017 Supreme Court ruling in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, which aimed to introduce transparency and objectivity into the process. That judgment had prompted several High Courts to suggest reforms.

Building on that precedent, the Supreme Court on Tuesday mandated that the exercise of designation must be undertaken annually. Ongoing designation processes may continue under the existing Indira Jaising guidelines, but no new process should begin until High Courts amend their rules as per the latest directives.

The Court also acknowledged that it too must revise its own rules in light of the new judgment. Concluding the verdict, the Bench emphasized the need for continuous evaluation and reform of the designation system to enhance its integrity and effectiveness.