Should Practice Of 'Senior Gown' Be Discontinued? Supreme Court Asks High Courts To Take A Call
The Supreme Court remarked that honesty and integrity are the qualities which every member of the Bar, whether senior or otherwise, must possess which is something basic.
The Supreme Court has left it on the High Courts to take a call regarding the practice of designated Senior Advocates using different type of gowns.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal in the case of Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (2025 INSC 249) in which earlier a two-Judge Bench expressed certain concerns regarding the process of designation of Senior Advocates laid down in the case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017).
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti observed, “Another issue raised by Ms. Indira Jaising was that the practice of designated Senior Advocates using different type of gowns has no basis in the Advocates Act. Therefore, according to her, this practice deserves to be discontinued. It is for the High Courts to take a call on this aspect while framing rules.”
The Bench remarked that honesty and integrity are the qualities which every member of the Bar, whether senior or otherwise, must possess which is something basic.
“Merely because an Advocate is a good human being, this by itself does not qualify the Advocate for designation”, it added.
Case Background
The two-Judge Bench earlier directed that the concerns expressed by it be placed before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for considering whether the issues arising out of the said concerns need to be placed before a larger Bench of appropriate strength. As per the administrative Order passed by the CJI, the issues arising out of the process of designating Advocates as Senior Advocates raised in the Judgment dated February 20, 2025 in Jitender @ Kalla case were placed for consideration before the three-Judge Bench.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, noted, “In our view, ability and standing at the Bar are two important qualifications while designating Advocates as Senior Advocates by Full Court.”
The Court said that the qualities of ability, standing at the Bar, and special knowledge and experience in law are present in the Advocates practicing in Trial and District Courts as much as of the Advocates practicing in the High Courts and the Supreme Court.
“There can be many members of the Bar who have a long presence in the profession. There are many members of the Bar who continue to practice for a long time, though their appearances are minimal. Only the number of years spent in practice cannot be a major criterion for designation by any stretch of imagination”, it further said.
The Court was of the view that assigning points on the basis of experience in terms of the number of years is something which will require reconsideration as it does not serve the object sought to be achieved by the Apex Court.
“Moreover, the length of practice cannot be a rational criterion. On the contrary, it will help those who do not deserve designation as they will get points on the basis of the number of years in practice”, it added.
The Court also remarked that subjecting an Advocate having standing at the Bar to interview by three senior-most Judges and two senior members of the Bar violates the dignity of the noble profession.
Before parting with the Judgment, the Court acknowledged the contribution of Senior Advocate Indira Jaising. It said, “She must be given full credit for starting a constructive debate on the issue. We hope and trust that her endeavour of bringing about objectivity and transparency in the process of designation succeeds.”
Accordingly, the Apex Court answered the referred issues.
Cause Title- Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 667)
Appearance:
Attorney General for India (AGI) R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, Senior Advocates P.S. Patwalia, Indira Jaising, Advocates Mathew J. Nedumpara, Pranav Sachdeva, Vipin Nair, and Anilendra Pande.
