Supreme Debate: Revisiting Legal Seniority Designations

Senior advocate Indira Jaising challenges the need for interviews in the senior designation process for lawyers. The Supreme Court deliberates on revising the 2017 judgment regarding the criteria for conferring senior advocate status, with opposing views on the necessity and process of evaluations and voting.

Senior advocate Indira Jaising has raised objections in the Supreme Court regarding the current interview process for granting senior designations to lawyers.

In a session with a special three-judge bench, several legal figures, including solicitor general Tushar Mehta, debated the 2017 guidelines mandated for senior advocates. Jaising contended that interviews, which were unilaterally introduced in the ruling, offer 25 marks that she insists are excessive and not part of her original suggestions.

This debate highlights a broader discussion on whether the Supreme Court should maintain, amend, or abandon the current criteria, inspired by foreign practices, for senior designations. While Mehta suggests developing a localized system free of international influences, he emphasizes the necessity of re-evaluating the 2017 decisions for potential revision.

(With inputs from agencies.)