The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for alignment of guidelines for the appointment of Senior Advocates with the Advocates Act, 1961 and a previous Supreme Court judgment. The court emphasized the importance of strict scrutiny and objectivity in the appointment process, highlighting the eligibility criteria, assessment parameters, and the role of the Permanent Committee.

I.P. Mukerji, J.

This public interest litigation was assigned to us by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for consideration and disposal.

2. It relates to the process of appointment of Senior Advocates by this Court.

3. This class of advocates is referred to in Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

4. It is in the following terms:

"16. Senior and other advocates.-

(1) There shall be two classes of advocates, namely, senior advocates and other advocates. (2) An advocate may, with his consent, be designated as senior advocate if the Supreme Court or a High Court is of opinion that by virtue of his ability 1 [standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law] he is deserving of such distinction. (3) Senior advocates shall, in the matter of their practice, be subject to such restrictions as the Bar Council of India may, in the interest of the legal profession, prescribe. (4) An advocate of the Supreme Court who was a senior advocate of that Court immediately before the appointed day shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be a senior advocate: 2 [Provided that where any such senior advocate makes an application before the 31st December, 1965 to the Bar Council maintaining the roll in which his name has been entered that he does not desire to continue as a senior advocate, the Bar Council may grant the application and the roll shall be altered accordingly.]"

5. An advocate may be designated as a senior advocate, subject to fulfillment of certain eligibility criteria like "standing at the bar" or "special knowledge" or "experience in law". This designation may be made by the Supreme Court or a High Court on formation of an opinion that the above qualities do exist in the advocate.

6. The Supreme Court pronounced a judgment on 12th October, 2017 MS. Indira Jaising Vs. Supreme Court of India reported in, (2017) 9 SCC 766, inter alia, prescribing guidelines for designation of senior advocates.

7. This is what the Supreme Court said:

"We are, therefore, of the view that the framework that we would be introducing by the present order to regulate the system of designation of Senior Advocates must provide representation to the community of advocates though in a limited manner. That apart, we are also of the view that time has come when uniform parameters/guidelines should govern the exercise of designation of Senior Advocates by all courts of the country including the Supreme Court. The sole yardstick by which we propose to introduce a set of guidelines to govern the matter is the need for maximum objectivity in the process so as to ensure that it is only and only the most deserving and the very best who would be bestowed the honour and dignity. The credentials of every advocate who seeks to be designated as a Senior Advocate or whom the Full Court suo motu decides to confer the honour must be subject to an utmost strict process of scrutiny leaving no scope for any doubt or dissatisfaction in the matter."

8. Following these directions on 3rd July, 2018, our Court through its Registrar General framed guidelines by notification. The contents of this notification are very important. We will discuss them later on in this judgment. On 25th July, 2018 this Court through the Registrar General, published another notification inviting application by learned Advocates by 31st July, 2018 along with affidavit information/data pertaining to paragraphs 14D, E and F of the guidelines.

9. Sometime in or about September, 2018 one Debasish Roy an advocate of this Court filed this public interest litigation challenging these two notifications issued by the Registrar General on many grounds.

10. Mr. Roy appearing in person, argued that the guidelines framed by our court were in conflict with the said Act and the said judgment of the Supreme Court. While prescribing the eligibility criteria guideline 11 states that the candidate must hav