'Highly Subjective, No Points For Honesty & Integrity': SC Removes Points-Based Assessment For Senior Designation Of Lawyers

New Delhi: The Supreme Court, in a significant verdict, on Tuesday decided to do away with the "highly subjective" points-based assessment system and the process of conducting interviews of advocates to designate them as senior advocates.

The verdict was delivered by a bench comprising justices Abhay S Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan and S V N Bhatti. The bench said the experience of the last seven and a half years shows that it may not be rationally or objectively possible to assess calibre, standing at the Bar, and the experience in law of the advocates who apply for designation on the basis of a point-based format.

"That has not achieved the desired objective. There is another important aspect which is relevant. No specific points have been assigned for the character, honesty and integrity. The point-based assessment, as can be seen from the earlier discussion, can hardly be objective, and it tends to be highly subjective”, said the bench, in the 89-page verdict.

The bench ruled that the directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of the previous judgment known as Indira Jaising-1 (2017) as amended by Indira Jaising-2 (2023) would not be implemented. Previous verdict had held that the permanent committee would examine each case in the light of the data provided by its secretariat; interview the advocate concerned; and make its overall assessment on the basis of a point-based format for the purpose.

The apex court said: “It is not out of place to observe that subjecting an advocate having standing at the Bar to interview by three senior-most judges and two senior members of the Bar violates the dignity of the noble profession”. The apex court said it will be appropriate if all the high courts frame rules in terms of what is held in this decision within a period of 4 months from today by amending or substituting the existing rules.

"The rules shall be made keeping in view the following guidelines: a. The decision to confer designation shall be of the Full Court of the high courts or this court; b. The applications of all candidates found to be eligible by the permanent secretariat along with relevant documents submitted by the applicants shall be placed before the Full House. An endeavour can always be made to arrive at consensus", said the bench.

The bench said if a consensus on designation of advocates is not arrived at, the decision-making must be by a democratic method of voting. “Whether in a given case there should be a secret ballot, is a decision which can be best left to the High Courts to take a call considering facts and circumstances of the given case; c. Minimum qualification of 10 years of practice fixed by Indira Jaising-1 needs no reconsideration”, said the bench.

The bench said practice of advocates making applications for grant of designation can continue as the act of making application can be treated as consent of the advocates concerned for designation. “Additionally, the Full Court may consider and confer designation dehors an application in a deserving case; In the scheme of Section 16(2) (of the Advocates Act), there is no scope for individual judges of this court or high courts to recommend candidate for designation; at least one exercise of designation should be undertaken every calendar year”, said the bench.

"It is obvious that even this court will have to undertake the exercise of amending the Rules/Guidelines in the light of this decision; and every endeavour shall be made to improve the regime/system of designation by periodically reviewing the same by this court and the respective high courts," the bench said.

The three-judge bench considered the matter after a two-judge bench in Jitender alias Kalla Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors, had on February 20, 2025 expressed concerns over the process of designation of senior advocates.