Introduction:

In the landmark case of Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr. [SLP (Crl.) No. 4299/2024], the Supreme Court of India undertook a historic judicial review of its earlier decisions in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) and its subsequent refinement in 2023. The three-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and SVN Bhatti delivered a transformative verdict on May 13, 2025, discontinuing the point-based assessment method for the designation of Senior Advocates, which was previously mandated by the 2017 and 2023 judgments. While recognising the invaluable role played by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising in initiating the reforms, the Court held that the method of designation must now evolve to ensure a more democratic, equitable, and inclusive process. This judgment followed a reserved verdict from March 20, 2025, in a proceeding that began with concerns about procedural deficiencies and inherent biases in the existing designation system, including the marginalisation of trial court lawyers and the overreliance on reported judgments.

Arguments of the Parties and Stakeholders:

The hearings preceding this judgment were rooted in concerns raised by a two-judge bench (Justice Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih) on February 20, 2025, in a matter involving misrepresentation by a designated Senior Advocate in remission pleas. This led to a broader institutional introspection about the effectiveness, fairness, and inclusiveness of the senior designation process under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The process at that point was largely governed by the Indira Jaising decisions, which had introduced a point-based evaluation system, wherein applicants were assessed based on criteria such as years of practice, number of reported judgments, publications, and interview performance.

Justice Abhay Oka, during the hearings, expressed concerns about how the current process—especially the interview component—might reduce a dignified professional recognition to a subjective and mechanical selection process. The bench questioned the capacity of the Permanent Committee, composed of senior judges and bar leaders like the Attorney General (AG) and Advocate General (A-G), to meaningfully assess voluminous judgment materials submitted by aspirants. The Court doubted whether judges and bar members could fairly award scores, particularly on subjective parameters like personality, when such assessments might inherently be biased or arbitrary.

The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Supreme Court, strongly opposed the existing marking system. He advocated for its complete overhaul in favour of a democratic method—preferably a secret ballot voting by the Full Court. Mehta also objected to individual recommendations by judges and the inclusion of bar members in the Permanent Committee. He urged the Court to ensure the process accounted for representation from trial court lawyers, many of whom were disadvantaged due to the emphasis on reported judgments.

In contrast, Attorney General R. Venkataramani offered a more balanced perspective. While supporting the broad framework of the existing system, he proposed eliminating the interview component to reduce subjectivity. He acknowledged that the evaluation process had become physically and intellectually taxing for the committee members and endorsed suggestions for external assistance. However, he maintained that the Permanent Committee’s recommendations should ideally guide the Full Court’s decision-making, albeit with the Full Court retaining final authority.

The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), led by President Vipin Nair, expressed a mixed view. Nair favoured minor reforms, such as reducing the interview’s weightage and increasing transparency by allowing applicants to see their preliminary marks. SCAORA also proposed real-time evaluation of AoR performance and sought representation on the Permanent Committee. However, Nair opposed the secret ballot, viewing it as potentially lacking transparency and accountability.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, who originally initiated the reform process that led to the 2017 and 2023 guidelines, staunchly defended the point-based method and the interview. She argued that a structured marking system brought transparency and consistency, countering the arbitrariness that previously marked the designation process. She called for greater public transparency, including live-streaming Full Court deliberations, and pushed for conscious inclusion of caste, gender, and minority representation. Jaising also condemned the culture of lobbying and unofficial recommendations by individual judges.

The inclusion of bar leaders in the decision-making process was one of the most contested aspects. Justice Oka questioned the propriety of formal involvement of non-judicial bar members in assigning scores. He clarified that while informal consultation was acceptable, formal authority over scoring was problematic. This raised constitutional concerns over judicial independence and decision-making purity.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court’s final ruling marked a clear departure from the Indira Jaising guidelines. Justice Abhay Oka, while reading the operative part of the judgment, announced that paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising I, as amended in Indira Jaising II, shall no longer be implemented. The Court categorically discontinued the point-based assessment method and directed both the Supreme Court and the High Courts not to initiate new designation processes under the old system.

The bench laid out a revised, inclusive, and simplified framework for Senior Advocate designation based on the following guiding principles:

• Full Court Authority: The designation decision must be taken solely by the Full Court of the respective High Court or the Supreme Court. The era of committee-led scoring has ended, and the ultimate authority rests with the collective judicial body.
• Transparency Through Secretariat: Applications shall first be screened by a permanent secretariat for eligibility. Only then shall all eligible applications, along with the relevant supporting documents, be placed before the Full Court.
• Consensus and Voting: The Court emphasised that efforts should be made to arrive at a consensus. However, where consensus fails, democratic decision-making by voting shall prevail. The option of using a secret ballot is left to the discretion of the Full Court, depending on the facts and circumstances.
• Retention of Basic Criteria: The minimum requirement of 10 years of legal practice, as stipulated in Indira Jaising I, was reaffirmed and not reconsidered.
• Applications and Suo Motu Designations: Advocates may apply for designation voluntarily, and the act of applying would be treated as consent. Additionally, the Full Court retains the discretion to confer senior designation without a formal application in deserving cases.
• No Individual Recommendations: The Court clarified that under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, there is no scope for individual judges to recommend candidates. This reinforces institutional decision-making over individual preferences.
• Annual Exercise Mandatory: At least one round of senior designation must be held every calendar year to ensure timely recognition of deserving advocates.
• Transitional Arrangement: Processes already initiated under the old Indira Jaising regime will be completed per those rules. However, no new designations or applications will be considered until new rules are framed as per this judgment.
• Rule Amendment Deadline: All High Courts and the Supreme Court must amend or substitute their existing rules to reflect this new system within four months.
• Periodic Review: The Court also recommended that the new system be subject to periodic review to ensure continual improvements.

In conclusion, the Court struck a balance between structured evaluation and democratic discretion. It dismantled the overly bureaucratic point-based model and sought to empower institutional integrity and inclusivity. The Court particularly stressed representation from the trial court bar, a demographic often marginalised in the old system due to lack of reported judgments and academic publications.