The Supreme Court has raised concerns about the current system for designating Senior Advocates, noting that it unfairly favors lawyers practicing in higher courts while sidelining those who build their careers in trial courts.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice A.G. Masih highlighted flaws in the ‘point-based assessment system’ used to grant Senior Advocate status. This system, shaped by past rulings in the Indira Jaising case, assigns significant weight to “reported judgments”—a factor that trial lawyers cannot leverage since only decisions from the Supreme Court and High Courts are published in accredited law reports.
The Court observed that many skilled trial lawyers, including seasoned public prosecutors and defense attorneys, lack avenues to earn enough points for senior designation, despite their extensive experience and legal expertise. Their arguments often focus on case facts rather than the broader legal formulations typically reflected in higher court rulings.
The bench referred the issue to the Chief Justice of India, suggesting a possible review by a larger bench. It stressed that the pathway to Senior Advocate status should not be dominated by Supreme Court and High Court practitioners alone, emphasizing that trial courts also hold a vital place in India’s judicial framework.
This latest judicial intervention calls into question the fairness of existing designation criteria and raises broader concerns about equal professional recognition across different levels of the legal system.