MS. INDIRA JAISINGversusSUPREME COURT OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL

434                      [2023]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT    5 S.C.R. 434                 [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A                            MS. INDIRA JAISING
                                        v.
          SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY
                          GENERAL
                        (M.A. Nos. 709/2022, 1502/2020)
B
                  (IA Nos.58694/2022, 74393/2020, 75687/2021)
                                        In
                       (Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of 2015)
                                  MAY 12, 2023
C
        [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
                   AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
             Advocates Act, 1961: s. 16 – Designation of Senior Advocates
      – Criteria for – Guidelines laid down in *Indira Jaising v. Supreme
      Court of India’s case, to bring in greater transparency and objectivity
D     in the designation process of Senior Advocates – 2017 Judgment
      given effect by the Supreme Court Guidelines to Regulate
      Conferment of Designation of Senior Advocates, 2018 – Plea that
      the guidelines enumerated not exhaustive and require
      reconsideration by suitable additions/deletions – Held: Guidelines
E     for designation of Senior Advocates modified as regards, voting by
      secret ballot, cut-off marks, the points assigned for publications,
      criteria on account of reported and unreported judgments, pro bono
      work, and the domain expertise of an applicant under various
      branches of law, the personal interview and other aspects – Supreme
      Court Guidelines to Regulate Conferment of Designation of Senior
F     Advocates, 2018.
            *Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through
            Secretary General and Others, (2017) 9 SCC 766 :
            [2017] 10 SCR 478 – relied on.
                             Case Law Reference
G
      [2017] 10 SCR 478                 relied on                Para 9
            CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: M.A. Nos. 709/2022, 1502/
      2020; IA Nos. 58694/2022, 74393/2020, 75687/2021 in Writ Petition (C)
      No. 454 OF 2015.
H           (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
                                       434
     MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,                        435
             THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL

      Ms. Indira Jaising, Mohan V. Katarki, Jaideep Gupta, Aruneshwar     A
Gupta, Aman Lekhi, Sr. Advs., Ms. Anindita Pujari, Rohin Bhatt, Paras
Nath, Siddhartha Srivastava, Abineet Arvind, Abhineet Arvind, Maitreya
Saha, Ms. Radika Mohapatra, Rauf Rahim, Ali Asghar Rahim, J. P.
Singh, Ms. Tanya Sharma, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Rajiv Kataria for M/s.
Delhi Law Chambers, Rajat Sehgal, Ms. Nina R. Nariman, Malak Manish
                                                                          B
Bhatt, Rajat Bector, Ms. Geetika Kapur, Milind Kumar,A.
Lakshminarayanan, Vivek Sharma, Ms. Neelu Sharma, Manish Raghav,
Sumit Saddi, Himanshu Singh Dhillon, Rohit Gour, Kartik Hooda, E. Vinay
Kumar, Raghuveer Pujari, Jugnu Bhati, Devvrat, Manoj K. Mishra, Mrs.
Rashmi Malhotra, Puneet Singh Bindra, Sachin Sharma, Abhinav
Ramkrishna, Vishal Prasad, Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, Aakarshan Aditya,       C
Ms. Anzu K. Varkey, Devesh Kumar Agnihotri, Advs. for the Petitioner.
      Mrs. Madhavi Divan, A.S.G., Vikas Singh, Pradeep Kumar Rai,
Ms. Rachana Srivastava, Ms. Sonia Mathur, Brijender Chahar, Dinesh
Kumar Goswami, Vikas Pahwa, Ranji Thomas, Ajit Kumar Sinha, S
Prabakaran, Manan Kumar Mishra, Apurba Sharma, Pradeep Rai, S.            D
Wasim A. Qadri, Puneet Bali, Sr. Advs., Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha,
Reepak Kansal, Ms. Seema Patnaha, Kumar Gaurav, Mukesh Kumar
Singh, Vikas Gupta, Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Upendra Mishra, Ms. Nandani
Gupta, Satbir Singh Pillania, Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Ms. Deepeika Kalia,
Keshav Khandelwal, Aditya kaul, Sibo Sankar Mishra, Niranjan Sahu,
Umakant Misra, Sunil Mund, Ms. Apoorva Sharma, Ashok Mathur,              E
Manpreet Kaur Bhalla, Karan Thakur, Purvish Jitendra Malkan, Ms.
Dharita Purvish Malkan, Merusagar Samantaray, Anandh Kannan N.,
Dr. Ram Sankar, G Jai Singh, Yusuf, Ma. Gouthaman, Ms. Kiran Kumar
SB, M. Naveen, Prashant Singh, Siddharth Agrawal, Ashutosh Ghade,
Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad,              F
Nirmal Ambastha, Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Ms. Shreya Srivastava, Ashish
Madaan, Ms. Ananya Sahu, Ms. Radhika, Vishwajeet Mishra, Sai Girdhar,
Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Pai Amit, Anirudh
Sanganeria, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vyom
Raghuvanshi, Ms. Akanksha Rathore, V. P. Singh, Ms. Rajshree Rai,
Siddhant Gupta, Arnav Mittal, Ms. Banshika Garg, Shashank Rai, Ms.        G
Ritika Gaur, Vipin Bharti, Aishwariya Pratap Shahi, Karan Singh
Chaudhary, Akshat Singh, Avinash Sharma, Udita Singh, Tamim Qadri,
Saeed Qadri, Shravan Kumar Verma, Sangeet Singh, Rajesh Ranjan,
Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Kanu Agarwal, Digvijay Dam, Anandh
Venkataramani, Mrs. Vijayalakshmi Venkataramani, Vinayak Mehrotra,        H
436              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     Ms. Mansi Sood, Chitvan Singhal, Ms. Sonali Jain, Abhishek Kumar
      Pandey, Raman Yadav, Ms. Sneha Kalita, Arvind Kumar Sharma,
      Bhoparai, Aditya Soni, Rishi Malhotra, Tuhin, B.A. Wadhmare, Hitesh
      Kumar Sharma, Akhileshwar Jha, Ms. Niharika Dwevedi, Amit Kumar
      Chawla, Ms. Shweta Sand, Nitin Shrma, Advs. for the Respondent.
B              Applicant-in-person
               The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
               SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
               History and rationale for designation of Senior Advocates in
C     India:
             1. The practice of having a distinguished class of senior pleaders
      with considerable status and experience in India can be traced back to
      legal practice in the United Kingdom. This category is said to have
      originated in the 13th century, as a distinguished class of senior pleaders
D     known as Serjeants-at-Law. In the 18th century, selection in another
      such category, known as King’s/Queen’s Counsel became a matter of
      honour and a recognition of professional eminence.
             2. The designation of Senior Advocates in India is a privilege
      awarded as a mark of excellence to advocates who have distinguished
      themselves and have made a significant contribution to the development
E
      of the legal profession. It identifies advocates whose standing and
      achievements would justify an expectation on the part of the clients, the
      judiciary, and the public, that they can provide outstanding services as
      advocates in the best interest of the administration of justice.
             3. Presently, the designation of Senior Advocates in India is
F
      provided by Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred
      to as the ‘Advocates Act’), wherein advocates are classified in two
      categories, namely as a ‘Senior Advocate’ and ‘Advocate’.
               Criteria for designation of Senior Advocates over the years:
G            4. Under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, the Supreme Court
      and the High Court have the power to designate an advocate as a Senior
      Advocate with his consent. In the case of the Supreme Court, this power
      is provided in Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.
            5. Before the introduction of the Advocates (Amendment) Act,
H     1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Amendment Act’), the criteria for
    MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,                                  437
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

designation as Senior Advocate was based on “ability, experience and               A
standing at the Bar”. Pursuant to the Amendment Act, this criterion was
then changed to “ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or
experience in law”. Therefore, the higher judiciary in India has the sole
discretion to designate an advocate as a Senior Advocate based on such
parameters.
                                                                                   B
      6. With regard to the High Court, there was no uniform criteria
and different High Courts in the country had different criterion for
designation of Senior Advocates.
       7. In the Supreme Court, the applications for Senior Advocates
were subject to deliberation by the Full Court and were put to vote through        C
secret ballots. Therefore, the designation was not based on any objective
criteria.
       The 2017 Judgment:
       8. Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate, filed a writ petition under
                                                                                   D
Article 32 of the Constitution of India in 2015. She submitted that the
existing system of designation of Senior Advocates was flawed as it
was not objective, fair, and transparent, and thus did not take into account
considerations of merit and ability. She inter alia sought the system of
voting to be abandoned and to be replaced by a permanent Selection
Committee. At this stage, we may note that the petitioner did not press            E
for Section 16 of the Advocates Act or Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013 to be declared unconstitutional.
       9. Vide an elaborate judgment dated 12.10.2017, a three Judge
Bench of this Court laid down a series of guidelines to bring in greater
transparency and objectivity in the designation process. 1 This was done           F
while retaining the suo motu designation power of the Court. These
guidelines have been set forth in paragraph 73 of the judgment. These
inter alia, provided for the constitution of a Permanent Committee
consisting of five Members, to be headed by the Chief Justice and two
senior-most Judges. The Attorney General/Advocate General of the State             G
was also to be a Member of this Committee. In order to provide further
representation, the fifth Member was to be nominated from the Bar by
the aforementioned four Members of the Permanent Committee. The
1
  Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General and Others,
(2017) 9 SCC 766 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2017 Judgment’).                 H
438                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     Permanent Committee was empowered to assess applications on the
      basis of a point based format, as is provided below:
             “73.7. The Permanent Committee will examine each case in the
             light of the data provided by the Secretariat of the Permanent
             Committee; interview the advocate concerned; and make its overall
B            assessment on the basis of a point-based format indicated below:

               Sl.No.                      Matter                      Points
              1.        Number of years of practice of the applicant 20 points
                        advocate from the date of enrolment.

C                       [10 points for 10-20 years of practice; 20
                        points for practice beyond 20 years]
              2.        Judgments (reported and unreported) which 40 points
                        indicate the legal formulations advanced by
                        the concerned advocate in the course of the
                        proceedings of the case; pro bono work done
                        by the advocate concerned; domain expertise
D                       of the applicant advocate in various branches
                        of law, such as Constitutional law, Inter-State
                        Water Disputes, Criminal law, Arbitration
                        law, Corporate law, Family law, Human
                        Rights,      Public     Interest    Litigation,
                        International law, law relating to women, etc.
E             3.        Publications by the applicant advocate          15 points
              4.        Test of personality and suitability on the 25 points
                        basis of interview/interaction

            10. The 2017 Judgment was thereafter given effect by the
      Supreme Court Guidelines to Regulate Conferment of Designation of
F     Senior Advocates, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2018
      guidelines’).
             11. In paragraph 74 of the 2017 Judgment, this Court noticed that
      the guidelines enumerated may not be exhaustive and may require
      reconsideration by suitable additions/deletions in the light of the experience
G     to be gained over a period of time. Thus, the Bench left it open for
      consideration by this Court at such point of time that the same may
      become necessary. The debate before us in the present applications is in
      this conspectus.
             12. At this stage, we must note that the submissions pertaining to
H     the criterion in Sl. No. 1 do not really survive in view of this Court’s
    MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,                               439
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

order dated 04.05.2022. The norms, as enumerated in the 2017 Judgment,          A
required 10 points to be given for all advocates practicing between 10-
20 years and 20 points for advocates practicing beyond 20 years. The
result would be that an applicant with 11 years of practice and an applicant
with 19 years of practice would get the same points in this criterion. In
order to iron out this crease, this Court observed that under this category,
                                                                                B
one mark each shall be allocated for every year of practice between 10-
20 years.
       13. The issues remaining before us pertain to the manner of
marking and the allocation of points at Sl. Nos. 2-4 in paragraph no. 73.7
of the 2017 Judgment. The debate before us is also over the manner of
                                                                                C
the exercise conducted for designation of Senior Advocates.
      14. We thus proceed to set forth the headings under which different
aspects have been debated and our views on the same.
      Voting by Secret Ballot:
                                                                                D
       15. The method of designation prior to the 2017 Judgment, was
by a discussion followed by voting by secret ballot from Judges of the
Full Court. The percentage of approval required ordinarily varied from
2/3rd to 50%. In the 2017 Judgment, it was noticed that a secret ballot
was supposed to be a rarity rather than the norm and may be used only
under certain unavoidable circumstances.                                        E
       16. Applicants before us submitted that designation through voting
by secret ballot defeats the very purpose of setting up the Permanent
Committee. There ought to be no need to resort to voting by secret
ballot once a person scores marks above the cut off (if fixed). Further,
despite the 2017 Judgment, the process of voting by secret ballot, which        F
was meant to be used in exceptional circumstances, is frequently resorted
to. Even where the assessment has been carried out by the Permanent
Committee, the ultimate decision hinged on a vote by the Full Court. It
was averred that the process of designation was meant to be a selection,
and not an election.
                                                                                G
       17. In our view, the matter before us is in a limited compass. Our
remit is to fine-tune the guidelines laid by this Court in the 2017 Judgment.
The constitution of a Permanent Committee, reliance on certain objective
criteria for assessment, and final decision through voting are the central
aspects of the 2017 Judgment. Our remit does not extend to reviewing
                                                                                H
440             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     the same, but only to modifying the criteria through our experiences
      gained over a period of time.
             18. We agree that the elaborate procedure carried out by the
      Permanent Committee would serve no purpose if the ultimate decision
      is taken by secret ballot. It has been found that even the applicants
B     who were beyond the cut-off were at times put through a secret ballot.
      This has resulted in both the exclusion of people from the list prepared
      by the Permanent Committee and expansion of the list by further
      inclusion.
             19. The aforesaid aspect has to be considered in the conspectus
C     of the concept of ‘Senior Designation’. This designation has always
      been held to be an honour conferred. While it is alleged that voting by
      secret ballot may not always subserve the interests of transparency, in
      practice judges may be reluctant to put forth their views openly. This is
      especially the case where the comments of a judge can have a deleterious
D     effect on the advocate’s practice.
             20. Thus, we find merit in the contention that voting by secret
      ballot should not be the rule but clearly an exception. In case it has to be
      resorted to, the reasons for the same should be recorded.
            Cut-off Marks:
E
            21. A grievance was raised that while the cut-off marks may
      have already been decided, the same are neither published in advance
      nor communicated to those applying for senior designation, thereby leading
      to speculation at the Bar. It was thus prayed that the cut-off marks be
      released in advance.
F
             However, in the course of the oral submissions, a consensus
      emerged between the parties, and in our view rightly so, that it would be
      difficult to prescribe cut-off marks in advance. As designation is really
      an honour to be conferred, there can only be a limited number of
G     successful applicants in one go. A decision on the number of successful
      applicants must be left to the Permanent Committee, depending on the
      total number of applicants, the marks obtained by them, and the number
      of people that can be invited for the personal interview.
             22. We now turn our attention to the modifications suggested in
H     the categories enumerated under paragraph 73.7 of the 2017 Judgment.
    MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,                                 441
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

       The Points Assigned for Publications:                                      A
      23. This aspect was debated with fairly divergent views. As per
Ms. Indira Jaising, a designated Senior Advocate is not just someone
who appears in Court. They are also expected to contribute intellectually,
and to the development of the law. She thus submitted that although
the points under this category could be altered, they should not be               B
abolished.
         24. On the other hand, the Supreme Court Bar Association and
others sought to contend that very few actively practicing advocates are
able to devote time to writing books or articles. In any case, publications
were not a reflection of advocacy skills. This is apart from the fact that        C
it is often difficult to ascertain whether an article is written by an advocate
themselves. It was also contended that it is difficult to objectively
determine the quality of such publications.
       25. We have considered the aforesaid aspect and find some merit
on both sides. We find that the allocation of 15 points for publication is        D
high, and thus we deem it fit to reduce the available points under this
category to 5 points. Most practicing advocates find very little time to
write academic articles. In any case, academic publications require a
different aptitude. However, given that Senior Advocates are expected
to make nuanced and sophisticated submissions, academic knowledge
of the law is an important prerequisite. Thus, we would not like to do            E
away with this criteria, but expand what should fall under this criteria,
while reducing the points under this category.
       26. We believe that confining these criteria merely to the authorship
of academic articles would not be enough. Instead, it must also include
teaching assignments or guest courses delivered by advocates at law               F
schools. This would be a more holistic reflection of the advocate’s ability
to contribute to the critical development of the law. It also shows their
interest in guiding and helping their peers at the Bar.
       27. We can take a cue from our neighboring country Singapore,
where Senior Counsel are recognized as an elite group of advocates,               G
with top tier advocacy skills, professional integrity, and knowledge of
law. Senior Counsels have a duty to leading and be an example to the
rest of the Bar, especially younger members. They are also required to
contribute to academic teaching, writing, and research, and to the process
of continuing legal education.
                                                                                  H
442             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A             28. Here, we would also like to add that the quality of writing by
      an advocate should be an important factor in allocating points under this
      category. We leave it to the Permanent Committee to decide on the
      manner of assigning points under this category, including the possibility
      of taking external assistance to gauge the quality of publications. This
      can be through other Senior Advocates or academics. We are conscious
B
      that this would increase the load of the Secretariat assisting the Permanent
      Committee, but that is inevitable.
             Criteria under Sl. No. 2 on Account of Various Parameters:
            29. This category becomes one of the most important as it
C     contemplates reported and unreported judgments, pro bono work, and
      the domain expertise of an applicant under various branches of law.
            30. We deem it fit to enhance the number of points under this
      category by 10 points, having deducted the same from Sl. No. 3, i.e.
      publications. We are also increasing the scope of this category.
D            31. The first aspect to be noticed under this head is that of reported
      and unreported judgments. We deem it fit to clarify that it is not orders
      (not laying down any proposition of law) but judgments that have to be
      considered. We say so as judgments ordinarily deal with significant and
      contested legal issues.
E             32. Here, we ought to also consider the role played by the advocate
      in the proceedings. In recent times, and particularly in the Supreme Court,
      the number of advocates present for a matter are very high. However,
      that is not ipso facto reflective of the assistance that they are providing
      to the Court. A matter may be argued by a counsel who may be assisted
F     by others, including an Advocate-on-Record. Thus, an assessment would
      have to be carried out in enquiring into the role played by the advocate in
      the matter they have appeared in with their role specified by them in
      their application. Merely looking into the number of appearances would
      not be enough.
            33. We believe that this would also take care of any perceived
G
      disadvantages arising due to the larger number of appearances by
      Government counsel, as compared to counsel who are engaged in private
      work.
            34. One suggestion that we are inclined to accept is that while
      analyzing the role of lawyers, the quality of the synopses filed in Court
H
    MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,                                 443
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

ought to be considered. Synopses can be a useful indicator for assessing          A
the assistance rendered by an advocate to the Court. Candidates should
thus be permitted to submit five of their best synopses for evaluation
with their applications.
       35. Now turning to another aspect under this head, it may be
noticed that many specialized tribunals have been set up, and several             B
advocates have concentrated their practice before such tribunals. The
specialized tribunals are the National Company Law Tribunal, Appellate
Tribunal for Electricity, Appellate Tribunal under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002, Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate
Tribunal, Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, etc. This has led to
the opening up of various specializations, including but not limited to           C
arbitration, telecom, electricity, energy, competition, insolvency, and white-
collar crime.
       36. Often appeals from those tribunals lie to this Court and, thus,
such advocates also appear before this Court, although the frequency of
their appearances may be less. Specialised lawyers with domain expertise          D
should be permitted to concentrate on their fields and not be deprived of
the opportunity of being designated as Senior Advocates. Thus, in the
case of such advocates, a concession is required to be given with regards
to the number of appearances. This category of advocates and their
expertise is also essential for the advancement of all specialized fields of      E
law.
       37. We also believe that due consideration should be given in the
interest of diversity, particularly with respect to gender and first-generation
lawyers. This would encourage meritorious advocates who will come
into the field knowing that there is scope to rise to the top. The profession     F
has seen a paradigm shift over a period of time, particularly with the
advent of newer law schools such as National Law Universities. The
legal profession is no longer considered as a family profession. Instead,
there are newer entrants from all parts of the country and with different
backgrounds. Such newcomers must be encouraged.
                                                                                  G
       The Personal Interview:
       38. The requirement of allocating 25 points in this category was
debated. One of the criticisms against retaining this category was that it
would delay the process of designation, keeping in mind the practical
issue of interviewing a large number of candidates. Further, very little
                                                                                  H
444             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     purpose would be served by an interview as the candidates were already
      being assessed by their appearances before the Court.
            39. We are conscious of the aforesaid criticisms. We believe that
      an interview process would allow for a more personal and in-depth
      examination of the candidate. An interview also enables a more holistic
B     assessment, particularly as the Senior Advocate designation is an honour
      conferred to exceptional advocates. A Senior Advocate is also required
      to be very articulate and precise within a given timeframe, which are
      values that can be easily assessed during an interview.
             40. It is in this spirit that we have sought to make the interview
C     process more workable. We have thus restricted the number of
      interviews to the appropriate amount as deemed feasible by the
      Permanent Committee, keeping in mind the number of Senior Advocates
      to be designated at a given time.
             41. As we have streamlined the process by restricting the number
D     of interviews in the context of number of candidates to be designated,
      we believe a meaningful exercise can be carried out. Thus, we are not
      inclined either to do away with or to reduce the marks assigned under
      this category, especially in view of the fine-tuning we have done by the
      present order to make this exercise more meaningful.
E           Other General Aspects:
            42. We may now turn to some general aspects which emerged
      during the oral submissions.
             43. Presently, as per the 2018 Guidelines, the process of designation
F     is to be undertaken twice a year, i.e. each year in the month of January
      and July. However, Mrs. Madhavi Divan, ASG, submitted that if the
      exercise has to be undertaken in the aforesaid elaborate form, it would
      be very difficult to undertake the process twice a year.
            44. In this regard, we would only like to say that the process
G     should be carried out at least once a year so that applications do not
      accumulate. In this respect, some disturbing instances have emerged
      from certain High Courts where the exercise of designation has not
      been undertaken for many years. As a consequence, meritorious
      advocates at the relevant time lose out on the opportunity of being
      considered for designation.
H
    MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA,                              445
THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

       45. With respect to younger advocates, we would like to state           A
that they are naturally not precluded from applying for designation,
particularly as the 2018 Guidelines do not require anything more than ten
years of practice. However, we believe that such advocates would have
to display that extra bit of ability to be designated.
       46. We must also say that the Supreme Court rests on a different        B
footing as the highest court of the land. Although designations in the
Supreme Court in comparison to High Courts have usually taken place
at the age of 45 plus, younger advocates have also been designated.
While we would not like to restrict applications only to advocates who
are above 45 years of age, only exceptional advocates should be designated     C
below this age. We say no more and leave this aspect to the wisdom of
the Permanent Committee and the Full Court.
       47. Here, we would like to reiterate the observation made in the
2017 Judgment that the power of suo motu designation by the Full Court
is not something that is being taken away. This power has been and can         D
continue to be exercised in the case of exceptional and eminent advocates
through a consensus by the Full Court.
       48. An endeavour was made by the Union of India to reopen the
2017 Judgment itself. That however is not our remit in the present
applications. We are not at the stage of a review or a reference of the        E
matter to a larger Bench. We are only on the aspect of fine-tuning what
has been laid down by this Court in the 2017 Judgment. It is also pertinent
that the then Attorney General was present throughout the oral hearings
that culminated in the 2017 Judgment. There is also the question of what
the role of the Union can even be at this stage, particularly as the Bar
                                                                               F
Council of India, which is the representative body of the lawyers is being
represented before us.
       49. Lastly, we come to the aspect of the pending applications for
designation. Once we have fine-tuned the norms, we cannot say that
the pending applications will be considered under the old norms. The           G
exercise to be undertaken now would have to include these existing
applications. However, such candidates can be given the time to update
or replace their applications in light of the norms laid down by the present
judgment. We urge the Secretariat to process these applications
expeditiously.
                                                                               H
446             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A            50. We only hope that our endeavour to simplify some aspects of
      the process results in the designation of more meritorious candidates.
      The process of improvement is a continuous one and we learn from
      every experience. This is one more step in the fine-tuning of this exercise
      and we hope it achieves the purpose. The ultimate objective is to provide
      better assistance to litigants and the Courts.
B

      Nidhi Jain                                                  Directions issued.
      (Assisted by : Mayank Batra, LCRA)



C




D




E




F




G




H