Senior Advocate Indira Jaisingh filed a writ petition in 2015 praying the Apex Court to formulate guidelines on Senior Designation, the petition was decided in 2017. Later on, based on those guidelines, Guidelines on Senior Designation were also passed in 2018. In 2023, the Supreme Court further modified the guidelines related to Senior Designation. In 2025 too, the court is considering the matter related to Senior Designation.
The 2017 Case
The challenge to Section 16 of the Act and Order IV rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which are the provisions for Senior Designation, was primarily founded on the basis that the classification made resulting in two classes of Advocates i.e. ‘Senior Advocates’ and ‘Advocates’ is not based on any reasonable and acceptable basis; even if there be one, the same has no connection with the object sought to be achieved by such classification.
It was argued that not only the practice of designation of Senior Advocates is a relic of the feudal past but it negates the concept of equality inasmuch as the professional qualifications of a “Senior Advocate” and an “Advocate” are the same and so also the competence and ability in most cases; yet, a Senior Advocate, by virtue of his designation, stands out as a class apart not only because of the special dress code prescribed but also because of the right of pre-audience conferred by Section 23 of the Act. A Senior Advocate steals an undeserving head start in the profession.
It was argued that because designation is conferred by the Judges there is a public perception that it is only the Senior Advocates who have been recognized by the Judges to be persons of competence, ability and merit. It is the perception of the petitioner – Association that undue indulgence is shown to Senior Advocates by the Courts. The litigant, in the circumstances, is left with no choice but to engage a Senior Advocate who in turn charges high fees for his/her services to the prejudice of the litigants.
It was further contended that the entire exercise of designation is a subjective process disclosing no basis for the particular conclusion reached. There being nothing to differentiate a person designated and a person who has not been so designated, the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India is violated.
It was also contended that even if an objective criteria is laid down and is followed, the distinction between the two classes of Advocates has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e. advancement of the legal system which in any case is also and, in fact, effectively serviced by Advocates who are not designated as Senior Advocates. The practice of designation of Senior Advocates has also been challenged on the ground that the same violates Article 18 of the 72 Constitution of India which imposes an embargo on conferment of title by the State.
Though state honours like ‘Bharat Ratna’, Padma Vibhushan’ etc. are still being conferred, the said honours are not prefixed or suffixed to the names of the recipients unlike that of a ‘Senior Advocate’. The conferment of designation being an instance of exercise of the administrative power of the Supreme Court and the High Courts the same is contrary to the mandate of Article 18 of the Constitution of India.
On these contentions, the court said that, the exercise of the power vested in the Supreme Court and the High Courts to designate an Advocate as a Senior Advocate is circumscribed by the requirement of due satisfaction that the concerned advocate fulfills the three conditions stipulated under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, i.e.,
(1) ability;
(2) standing at the bar; and/or
(3) special knowledge or experience in law that the person seeking designation has acquired.
It is not an uncontrolled, unguided, uncanalised power though in a given case its exercise may partake such a character. However, the possibility of misuse cannot be a ground for holding a provision of the Statute to be constitutionally fragile. The consequences spelt out by the intervener, namely, (1) indulgence perceived to be shown by the Courts to Senior Advocates; (2) the effect of designation on the litigant public on account of high fees charged; (3) its baneful effect on the junior members of the bar; and (4) the element of anti-competitiveness, etc. are untoward consequences occasioned by human failures. Possible consequences arising from a wrong/improper exercise of power cannot be a ground to invalidate the provisions of Section 16 of the Act.
Recognition of qualities of merit and ability demonstrated by in-depth knowledge of intricate questions of law; fairness in court proceedings consistent with the duties of a counsel as an officer of the Court and contributions in assisting the Court to charter the right course of action in any given case, all of which would go to determine the standing of the Advocate at the bar is the object behind the classification. Such an object would enhance the value of the legal system that Advocates represent. So long as the basis of the classification is founded on reasonable parameters which can be introduced by way of uniform guidelines/norms to be laid down by this Court, we do not see how the power of designation conferred by Section 16 of the Act can be said to be constitutionally impermissible.
Similar is the position with regard to the challenge founded on the alleged violation of Article 18 of the Constitution of India. The designation ‘Senior Advocate’ is hardly a title. It is a distinction; a recognition. Use of the said designation (i.e. Senior Advocate), per se, would not be legally impermissible inasmuch as in other vocations also we find use of similar expressions as in the case of a doctor referred to as a ‘Consultant’ which has its own implications in the medical world. There are doctors who are referred to as ‘Senior Consultants’ or as a ‘Senior Surgeon’. Such expressions are instances of recognition of the talent and special qualities of a person which has been proved and tested over a period of time. In fact, even in bureaucratic circles such suffixes and prefixes are also not uncommon.
We, therefore, take the view that the designation of ‘Advocates’ as ‘Senior Advocates’ as provided for in Section 16 of the Act would pass the test of constitutionality and the endeavour should be to lay down norms/guidelines/parameters to make the exercise conform to the three requirements of the Statute already enumerated herein above, namely,
(1) ability of the advocate concerned;
(2) his/her standing at the bar; and
(3) his/her special knowledge or experience in law.
Reference
Indira Jaisingh v. Supreme Court through its general secretary (2017)