Senior Advocate Designation Rests Solely with High Court Full Court Following Indira Jaising Guidelines: High Court - 2025-05-06

High Court Rejects Lawyer's Plea for Senior Designation, Upholds Indira Jaising Guidelines

Summary: The High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a lawyer seeking designation as a Senior Advocate, firmly reiterating that such designation is exclusively vested in the Full Court of the High Court and must strictly adhere to the procedure established by the Supreme Court in the Indira Jaising case.

Case Background

The petitioner, a lawyer enrolled with the Bar Council of Chattisgarh since May 2013, approached the High Court seeking directions to be designated as a Senior Advocate under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The lawyer claimed eligibility based on completing ten years of practice and invoked Article 51A of the Constitution, arguing against unequal treatment for female lawyers and citing fundamental duties. The relief sought included directions to accept specific forms related to the designation process.

Arguments Presented

• Petitioner: Argued entitlement to Senior Advocate designation based on her practice duration and eligibility under Section 16 of the Advocates Act. The petitioner contended that Article 51A supported her claim, implying a duty on the authorities to ensure equality.
• Respondents: Contended that the relief sought could not be granted directly by the court via the petition. They argued the matter was governed by established procedures, citing the Karnataka High Court's decision in T.N. Raghupathy & Ors. vs. High Court of Karnataka , which follows the Supreme Court's landmark judgment.

Court's Analysis and Precedents Cited

The High Court, presided over by Justice Nitin W. Sambre , meticulously examined the legal framework governing Senior Advocate designation.

Indira Jaising Guidelines: The Court emphasized the binding nature of the Supreme Court's judgment in Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India (2017 & 2023) . This ruling, under Article 142 of the Constitution, established comprehensive guidelines for designation, including: * The creation of a "Permanent Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates" headed by the Chief Justice. * A detailed procedure involving application compilation, data verification (reputation, pro-bono work, reported judgments), publication for stakeholder views, and scrutiny by the Permanent Committee. * A point-based assessment format covering years of practice, judgments/legal formulations, publications, and personality/suitability via interview. * Submission of assessed names to the Full Court for the final decision.

The Court noted the Supreme Court's observation in Indira Jaising :

"73.1. All matters relating to designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court of India and in all the High Courts of the country shall be dealt with by a Permanent Committee..." "73.8 All the names that are listed before the Permanent Committee/cleared by the Permanent Committee will go to the Full court."

Karnataka High Court's Affirmation: The judgment also referred to T.N. Raghupathy (2020) , where the Karnataka High Court summarized the Indira Jaising principles, stating explicitly:

"(d) The power to designate an Advocate as a Senior Advocate vests only in a Full Court of a High Court." "(g) The overall assessment made by the Permanent Committee in respect of every candidate shall be placed before the Full Court for decision, as the decision making authority vests in the Full Court." "(w) We reject the contention that the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Indira Jaising (supra) are per incuriam... no High Court can tinkle with any of the directions issued thereunder.”

Final Decision

Based on these precedents, the High Court concluded that the power and procedure for designating Senior Advocates are clearly defined and binding. The judgment stated:

"Therefore, it is no more res integra that the power to designate an Advocate as a ‘Senior Advocate’ vests only in a Full Court of a High Court and the procedure laid down in both the aforesaid judgments of Indira Jaising (supra) has to be strictly complied with in conferment of such designation. The petitioner has not taken recourse to the said procedure which is prescribed in accordance with law."

Consequently, the Court found that the relief claimed by the petitioner could not be granted as she had bypassed the established legal procedure. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. This decision underscores the mandatory nature of the Indira Jaising framework for all Senior Advocate designations.