Lok Sabha Question No. 4884 (UNSTARRED), answered on 2023-03-31
Subject: Criteria for Designating Senior Advocates in SC and HCs
Ministry: LAW AND JUSTICE
Asked by: Manish Tewari

## GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS

******

## LOK SABHA

## UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 4884

## TO BE ANSWERED ON FRIDAY THE 31ST MARCH, 2023

Criteria for Designating Senior Advocates in SC and HCs

## 4884.     SHRI MANISH TEWARI:

## Will the Minister of LAW AND JUSTICE be pleased to state:

- a. the number of lawyers designated as Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court   (SC) and various High Courts (HCs) between 01.04.2010 and 01.03.2023, court-wise and namewise;
- b. the criteria followed by the Supreme Court and the various High Courts for designating Senior Advocates;
- c. whether the Government has proposed any changes in the existing criteria taking cognizance of an application filed before the Supreme Court on Feb. 16,2023 in this regard and if so, details of the changes proposed along with reasons therefor;
- d. the details of lawyers who are wives, sons, daughters and relatives of sitting or retired High Court and Supreme Court Judges designated as Senior Advocates during the said period, name-wise and court-wise; and
- e. whether the Government has received representations for amendments in  relevant statues to abolish the category of Senior Advocates and if so, the follow-up action taken by Government thereon?

## ANSWER MINISTER OF LAW AND JUSTICE (SHRI KIREN RIJIJU)

- (a) As per information available with the department, the details of advocates designated as 'Senior' between 01.04.2010 and 01.03.2023 in different High Courts are as under;

|   S.No. | Name of the High Court        |   No. of designated Senior lawyers |
|---------|-------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|       1 | High Court of Madhya Pradesh  |                                 37 |
|       2 | High Court of Kerala          |                                 37 |
|       3 | Punjab and Haryana High Court |                                 55 |
|       4 | High Court of Chhattisgarh    |                                 12 |

|   5 | Bombay High Court               |   100 |
|-----|---------------------------------|-------|
|   6 | High Court of Orissa            |    42 |
|   7 | High Court of Gujarat           |    29 |
|   8 | High Court of Karnataka         |    91 |
|   9 | High Court of Meghalaya         |    23 |
|  10 | Madras High Court               |   103 |
|  11 | High Court of Sikkim            |     7 |
|  12 | Gauhati High Court              |    91 |
|  13 | Patna High Court                |    36 |
|  14 | Allahabad High Court            |    99 |
|  15 | High Court of Jammu and Kashmir |    38 |
|  16 | High Court of Tripura           |    12 |

There  are  231  advocates designated as 'Senior' by Supreme Court in the said period of time.

(b)  to(e) The  designation  of  Senior  Advocates  is  dealt  by  the  Supreme  Court  as  per  'the Supreme  Court  Guidelines  to  Regulate  Confernment  of  Designation  of  Senior  Advocates, 2018 guidelines' framed by it after the decision in Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India W.P. (c ) No. 454 of 2015 .

The designation of Senior Advocates in different High Courts is done in accordance with the Rules framed by the different High Courts under section 34(1) r.w. 16(2) of Advocates Act, 1961  for  the  purpose  of  designation  of  Senior  Advocates  after  the  judgement  of  Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indira Jaisingh vs Supreme Court of India and Others AIR 2017 SC 5017.

The  Central  Government  in  the  matter  of Indira  Jaisingh  vs.  Supreme  Court  of  India  & Others has filed an application before Supreme Court seeking modification in the guidelines (@  paragraph  73)  framed  for  determining  the  designation  of  senior  advocates,  as  per  the judgement of Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India .

The application inter-alia states  that  the  title  of  'Senior  Advocate',  are  bestowed  with  the honour  based  on  exceptional  competence,  contribution  to  development  of  law,  advocacy skills etc. and the system evolved through the 2017 judgment, dilutes the dignity of the such 'honour'. Further, assigning 40% weightage to parameters like 'publications' and 'interviews' reduces advocacy to a mere job. The honour of being designated is to be based on their performance in court and the respect they command at the bar which neither have any  correlation  with  publication  and  interview.  A  standard  be  maintained  when  the requirement  of  publication  is  considered.  It  also  suggests  that  the  sheer  volume  of  the publication should  not take precedence  over  the subject matter of the publications; prerogative  to  be  given  to  publications  relating  to  law  and  prerogative  to  be  given  to publications  relating  to  law  and  its  ancillary  fields.  Thus,  designation  of  senior  advocates shall be made by evaluating the performance of the applicant in a full court meeting of all honourable judges in each constitutional court and such decision to be taken only resorting to secret ballot and passing the same by simple majority.

No data is maintained regarding the relation of advocate with sitting/retired Hon'ble Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court while designating them as Senior Advocates..