On 16th February 2023, the Centre has moved the Apex Court in the matter of Amar Vivek Aggarwal & Others vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Others, with the demand to resume with the conventional method of appointing senior advocates rather than the ongoing elaborate points system. Let us understand the major features of the old and new systems of Senior Advocates’ appointment.Conventional Method of Senior Advocates’ Appointment
Process of Appointment of Senior Advocates
Earlier, Supreme Court justices or other practitioners in the legal field who had attained a position of repute among peers and among a majority of the people related to the legal field were chosen to be senior advocates by a majority vote which was organized by way of secret ballot. The criteria for appointment summed up in a line was: “if the Supreme Court or a High Court is of opinion that by virtue of his ability , he is deserving of such distinction.”The Case of Indira Jaising vs. Union of India
Process of Appointment of Senior Advocates
In 2017, the Apex Court after hearing the plea of senior advocate Indira Jaising who was the first female senior advocate of India ruled that there must be permanent committee which would evaluate the profiles of all the applicants for the title of ‘Senior Advocate’ on the basis of the ‘Guidelines to Regulate the Conferment of Designation of Senior Advocates’. Some of the criterias included number of publications, years of experience, number of judgments (published/ unpublished) and contribution to legal literature. Indira Jaising had sought to bring about transparency in the process and eliminate all spaces for nepotism and favoritism by the Supreme Court justices by virtue of this reform which removed the practice of secret ballot as well.Centre Recalls Conventional Method of Appointment of Senior AdvocatesThe Centre has raised the following arguments and prayed before Supreme Court justices to reinforce the conventional method of appointment of senior advocates on the following grounds:
Few criterias in the enforced guidelines such as number of publications are immaterial to the merit held in advocacy by a candidate.
The criteria of publications and contribution to legal literature is flawed because it is easy to get legal literature published in bogus journals by paying a lump sum amount.
The conventional honorary practice of the profession has been lost by virtue of which renowned practitioners were conferred the title of ‘Senior Advocate’.
The secret ballot system was a boon to avoid canvassing by legal practitioners before selection and ensure transparency.
For more updates keep visiting our website www.topstoriesworld.com where we provide unbiased, true and top stories of the world.