The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday issued fresh guidelines for the process of conferring Senior Advocate designations upon lawyers. The new guidelines aim to enhance transparency and accountability in the process and replace the existing system with a more structured and democratic approach. 

A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan and SVN Bhatti directed all high courts to amend their existing rules to align with the court’s judgment within the next four months. This decision follows a review of the current process, which the court deemed in need of reform.

The court also announced that it has eliminated the "marking system" currently in place for designating senior advocates. The new procedure mandates that the full court of the high courts, or the SC, will make the final decision regarding the conferment of senior advocate titles. The applications of all candidates found eligible by the Permanent Secretariat, along with their supporting documents, will be presented to the full court for review, the news report said.

The top court emphasised that the process should aim for consensus, but if a consensus cannot be reached, a democratic voting method must be employed to make the final decision.

The apex court further clarified that whether a secret ballot is necessary in specific cases should be left to the discretion of the individual high courts. This decision will depend on the unique facts of each case.

In another ruling, the court upheld the current minimum qualification requirement of 10 years of practice for advocates applying for senior advocate designation. This threshold will remain unchanged, as per the court’s ruling.

The court allowed the continuation of the practice where advocates submit applications for the senior advocate designation. These applications will be considered as the advocate’s consent for the designation. However, the court also indicated that the full court may confer the designation on an advocate even without an application, provided the individual meets the required criteria.

The top court ruled out the possibility of individual judges recommending candidates for senior advocate designation. This decision is part of the court’s larger effort to ensure a fair and objective process.

The ruling came after the court had reserved its judgment on 20 March, in a case stemming from a convict's plea for remission in a kidnapping case. During the hearing, the court raised concerns about false pleadings being signed by advocates-on-record (AoRs) and suppressed facts in appeals. The conduct of Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra was also scrutinised during the case, leading the court to address the broader issue of the senior advocate designation process.

The procedure for conferring senior advocate designations was established following the Supreme Court's 2017 judgment in the case of Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court. The verdict had been issued on a plea by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, advocating for greater transparency and objectivity in the designation process.

Since then, several calls for reforms have emerged. At least four high courts have submitted suggestions for changes to the procedure.

The court reiterated that the designation process should be conducted annually. However, it specified that no new designations will be initiated until the high courts frame rules in line with the new guidelines. The ongoing designation process can continue, based on the earlier decisions in the Indira Jaising case, the news report said.

The top court also acknowledged that it would need to amend its own rules and guidelines in light of the latest decision, ensuring consistency across the system.