Senior Advocate Designations Under Fire: Bar Council Probes Nepotism Allegations at Punjab & Haryana High Court

Chandigarh – The process of conferring the coveted "senior advocate" designation at the Punjab and Haryana High Court is now under intense scrutiny, as the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana has launched a formal inquiry into allegations of "favouritism and nepotism" surrounding the recent appointment of 76 advocates to the senior rank. The move signals a significant moment of introspection and potential conflict between the Bar and the Bench over the integrity and transparency of a process central to the legal profession's hierarchy.

In an extraordinary meeting convened on Thursday, the state's highest regulatory body for advocates passed a resolution to seek a comprehensive report from the High Court on the methodology adopted for the designations. The decision, made under the chairmanship of Rakesh Gupta, came in response to "numerous complaints from members of the legal fraternity" who claim that the selection process was flawed, leading to the exclusion of meritorious candidates in favour of less deserving ones.

The resolution passed by the Council highlights the gravity of the concerns. It states, "The council took into view of allegations of favouritism and nepotism coupled with the fact that several meritorious candidates have been left out while many non-deserving candidates have been designated as senior advocates." This direct challenge from the Bar Council underscores a growing discontent within the legal community regarding the perceived opacity of the designation process.

The Contested Designations

The controversy stems from the High Court's notification on October 20, which named 76 new senior advocates. The process began with 210 applicants seeking the prestigious designation in 2024. Sources indicate that a screening committee initially cleared 64 names after interacting with eligible candidates. Subsequently, the Full Court not only approved these 64 but also added 12 more names to the final list, bringing the total to 76. This expansion of the list by the Full Court, without apparent committee-level vetting, appears to be one of the focal points of the brewing controversy.

The Bar Council's intervention, supported by 22 of its members with only one dissenter, aims to bring clarity to this process and ensure that the designation, a mark of excellence and integrity, is awarded on merit alone.

A Barrage of Questions for the High Court

Invoking its statutory duty under Section 6(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961, to "safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates," the Bar Council has formulated a detailed questionnaire for the High Court. This inquiry is not a mere formality but a deep dive into the procedural mechanics of the selection. The key information sought includes:

• Adherence to Legal Precedent: The Council has specifically asked whether the designation process was conducted in consonance with the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India . This 2017 judgment established objective criteria and a transparent framework for senior designations to curb arbitrariness. The Council also seeks to know whether the High Court applied its old or newly formulated rules for the process.
• Evaluation Criteria and Transparency: A central demand is for the disclosure of the complete data, criteria, and marking system used to evaluate the candidates. The Bar Council has pointedly asked "whether the marks, if any, awarded to individual candidates" were uploaded on the High Court's website for public scrutiny before the Full Court finalized the list—a key transparency measure mandated by the Indira Jaising verdict.
• Eligibility and Active Practice: The inquiry probes whether candidates "who has neither filed nor appeared in any case in recent years were considered for designation," addressing concerns that influence, rather than active legal practice and contribution, may have played a role.
• Procedural Fairness and Inclusivity: The Council is also examining whether the notification inviting applications was duly circulated among all bar associations to ensure wide participation. Furthermore, it has requested information on whether any specific criteria were adopted for candidates from Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities and for women advocates, to assess the commitment to diversity and representation.

The Broader Implications for the Legal Profession

The standoff between the Bar Council and the High Court administration is more than a regional dispute; it touches upon the foundational principles of fairness, transparency, and meritocracy within the Indian legal system. The "senior gown" is not just a ceremonial distinction; it signifies a lawyer's superior standing, expertise, and ethical conduct, often commanding higher fees and greater deference from the Bench. Any perception of bias or favouritism in its conferment erodes the credibility of the designation and, by extension, the institution of justice itself.

The Indira Jaising judgment was a watershed moment, intended to replace a system often criticized for its "tap on the shoulder" subjectivity with a structured, points-based evaluation. It mandated the formation of a permanent committee to vet applications based on objective criteria such as years of practice, pro bono work, publications, and notable judgments. The Bar Council's query about adherence to this judgment is a direct test of whether its principles have been implemented in spirit or merely on paper.

The legal community is watching closely. The High Court's response to the Bar Council's inquiries will be critical. A transparent and detailed explanation could allay fears and restore faith in the process. Conversely, an evasive or unsatisfactory response could escalate the conflict, potentially leading to further action from the Bar Council or even legal challenges to the designations themselves.

The Bar Council has deferred its meeting to October 31, 2025, to await the High Court's response before deciding on its next course of action. This period of anticipation will be a crucial test of the institutional relationship between the Bar and the Bench in the region, with lasting implications for judicial administration and professional standards across the country.