The Supreme Court has raised serious concerns over the current process for designating lawyers as Senior Advocates, highlighting key flaws in the evaluation system. A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan referred the matter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna for consideration on whether a larger bench should re-examine the process.
The Court questioned the sufficiency of the existing point-based evaluation system, particularly the role of interviews in assessing a lawyer’s suitability. It observed, “The duty of the Permanent Committee is to make its overall assessment of the advocate concerned based on a point-based formula. No other method of making overall assessment has been provided.”
One of the Court’s primary concerns was that “an advocate who lacks integrity or does not possess a quality of fairness is disentitled to designation.” The bench pointed out a critical gap in the process: even if committee members know a candidate lacks integrity, there is no formal mechanism to account for this in the evaluation.
“Even if members of the Permanent Committee know that the applicant-advocate lacks integrity or is not fair, or does not act as an officer of the court or against whom complaints are pending for professional misconduct, there is no scope to reduce the points on that account,” the Court noted.
Another issue raised was the practical difficulty in reviewing lawyers’ past work. The Court observed, “It is usual practice that applicants submit many judgments in which they have appeared and submit copies of books and many articles written by them. If members of the Permanent Committee are expected to go through every judgment submitted by the candidates to assign 50 marks, whether three senior judges, including the Chief Justice, should spend hours together for one candidate is a question that needs serious consideration.”
The matter was brought into focus in connection with the case of Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, who has been accused of making false statements in various cases. The bench left the decision on Malhotra’s designation to the Chief Justice, stating, “Regarding the designation of Rishi Malhotra, we leave it to the Hon’ble CJI to take a call.”
Additionally, the Court reaffirmed the responsibility of Advocates-on-Record (AoRs), warning that they cannot shift blame for incorrect or omitted facts in legal filings. “An AoR is answerable to this Court since he has a unique position under the Rules [Supreme Court Rules] of 2013. Therefore, when incorrect facts are stated in the petitions or when material facts or documents are suppressed, the AoR cannot shift the entire blame on either the client or his instructing advocates, therefore, it is his duty to be cautious [and] careful.”
With these concerns in mind, the Supreme Court has referred the issue to the CJI, leaving open the possibility of a larger bench re-examining the designation process.
