Is Brief Interview Sufficient To Assess Candidate's Suitability? Supreme Court Expresses Concern About Senior Advocate Designation Process
The Supreme Court has left it to the Chief Justice of India to decide whether a larger bench should examine the concerns raised regarding the Senior Advocate designation process.
Justice Abhay S Oka & Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has laid down strict guidelines for Advocates-on-Record (AoRs) regarding their professional responsibilities and flagged concerns over the current process of Senior Advocate designation.
The Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice A.G. Masih delivered the judgment, emphasizing the accountability of AoRs and raising doubts about the effectiveness of the existing point-based assessment system for Senior Advocates.
Advocates-on-Record: Greater Accountability Mandated
Justice Oka asserted that when an Advocate-on-Record files a petition that he has not drafted, he still bears full responsibility for its contents. He emphasized that an AoR must thoroughly review all case papers and ensure factual accuracy before submission.
"When a petition is not drafted by the Advocate-on-Record, the AoR who files it is entirely and wholly responsible to this court. It is his duty to go through the case papers and the petition to ascertain whether correct facts have been stated in the draft," Justice Oka stated.
Further, the Bench held that the duty of an AoR does not end after filing a case. Even if the arguing counsel is absent, the AoR must be prepared with case law and facts to assist the Court effectively.
The Court also issued a strict warning against misconduct, noting that AoRs engaging in conduct unbecoming of their role may face action under Rule 10 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules.
Concerns Over Senior Advocate Designation Process
On the designation of Senior Advocates, the Bench observed serious flaws in the current process, questioning whether a brief interview is sufficient to assess an advocate’s suitability for Senior Designation.
"It is doubtful whether by interviewing a candidate for a few minutes, his suitability can be tested. Even if members of the Permanent Committee know that a candidate lacks integrity, there is no scope to reduce the points on that account," Justice Oka remarked.
The point-based evaluation system, which considers judgments, legal articles, and books authored by candidates, was also scrutinized. The Court questioned whether Permanent Committee members could realistically review all the materials submitted and whether such an approach was practical and fair.
"Candidates submit many judgments and articles and books written by them. Whether the members of the Permanent Committee are expected to go through many articles and books and need to spend hours together for one candidate is a question that needs serious consideration," Justice Oka added.
The Court has left it to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) to decide whether a larger bench should examine the concerns raised regarding the Senior Advocate designation process.
Next Steps: Open House Discussion Scheduled
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) had earlier made submissions on these issues. The Court has now directed the Registry to hold an open house discussion next week, allowing further deliberations on the AoR responsibilities and Senior Advocate selection process.
Cause Title: Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi [SLP(Crl) No. 4299/2024; Diary No. 12735/2024]
