Supreme Court Directs High Courts To Recast Senior Advocate Designation Rules, Strikes Down 100‑Point Assessment

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan and S.V.N. Bhatti heard references arising out of this Court’s earlier judgments in Indira Jaising‑I and II and the judgment in Jitender @ Kalla, addressing whether the procedure for designation of Senior Advocates — particularly the 100‑point, Permanent Committee‑based assessment — required reconsideration. The Court examined appeals and interlocutory applications connected with Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025 and Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of 2015 that challenged aspects of the system for conferring the distinction under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The Court held that the point‑based overall assessment prescribed by Indira Jaising‑I (as modified by Indira Jaising‑II) was not workable in practice and accordingly directed that paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising‑I (as amended) “shall not be implemented.” The Court recorded that the exercise under Article 142 was experimental and that paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising‑I itself had preserved the scope for future reconsideration. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “What we have held in earlier paragraphs shows that the system of 100 point‑based assessment has not achieved the desired objectives. Moreover, the experience shows that the points‑based assessment is not flawless. We have realized that with experience. Therefore, paragraph 73.7 deserves deletion in exercise of powers reserved in paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising‑1 read with paragraph 51 in Indira Jaising‑2.” The Court further directed High Courts to frame or amend Rules within four months governing designation by the Full Court, retained the Permanent Secretariat for processing applications, and ordered that existing processes continue under the earlier decisions until new Rules were made; it also instructed that at least one designation exercise be undertaken each calendar year.

Background The reference originated in this Court’s judgment in Jitender @ Kalla (20 Feb 2025), which had expressed serious concerns about the working of the designation regime framed in Indira Jaising‑I (2017) and refined in Indira Jaising‑II (2023). Indira Jaising‑I had established a Permanent Committee (headed by the Chief Justice with two senior judges, the Attorney General/Advocate General and a nominated member of the Bar), a Secretariat to compile dossiers, a published proposal process, interviews and a 100‑point marking scheme (years of practice; judgments and domain expertise; publications; and personality/interview). Indira Jaising‑II adjusted certain weightages and reiterated that secret ballot should be exceptional.

Subsequent experiences and several interlocutory applications (including IA Nos. 145730–31/2021, 45959/2022, 55879/2023 and 36111/2023) urged further modification, contending that (i) Section 16 envisaged conferment by the Court and did not contemplate a Bar‑driven point‑assignment process; (ii) the interview and 25‑point personality test demeaned senior members and proved unreliable; (iii) the Permanent Committee and two bar members’ participation in scoring raised propriety concerns; and (iv) the workload made thorough assessment of voluminous judgments and publications unfeasible. The Solicitor General, Attorney General and multiple High Courts and stakeholder groups made detailed submissions for re‑calibration; Ms Indira Jaising (petitioner‑in‑person) defended the need for objective, transparent norms but acknowledged scope for improvement.

After hearing the parties, the Court recorded that the 100‑point mechanism and the role of Bar members in assigning points required deletion and reworking. The Court concluded that applications could continue (as a practical form of consent), that designation remained a Full Court function (individual judges could not recommend candidates for conferment), and that diversity, consideration of trial‑court and tribunal practitioners, a minimum threshold of ten years’ practice and annual exercises should be preserved. The Court allowed the listed interlocutory applications and directed High Courts to frame Rules within four months; it also stated that new designation exercises should await those Rules while processes already underway would continue under the earlier framework.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 667; Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025 (with WP(C) No. 454 of 2015 and connected IAs) Case Title: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 454 of 2015 and connected interlocutory applications Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Indira Jaising — Petitioner‑in‑Person (in WP(C) No. 454/2015); Advocate‑on‑Record for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 865/2025 (name not specified in report) For the Respondent(s): Shri Tushar Mehta — Solicitor General of India; Attorney General for India (appeared; name not specified in report); Mr. Vipin Nair — counsel for Supreme Court Advocates‑on‑Record Association; Mr. Anilendra Pande — for Supreme Court Arguing Counsel Association (unregistered); Mr. Pranav Sachdeva — for Respondent No. 2; Mr. P.S. Patwalia — for High Court of Punjab & Haryana; Mr. Mathew J. Nedumpara — for National Lawyers Campaign.