Central government seeks modification of Senior Designation guidelines; tells Supreme Court interview, publications not effective parameters

The Central government has moved a modification application before the Supreme Court vehemently arguing that the latter's 2017 judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, which had laid down guidelines for the process of designation of Senior Advocates, needs revisiting..The government has contended that the new system has resulted in 'dilution' of the esteem, elegance and dignity that come with process of conferring designations.Calling for a revert to the old system of performance-based evaluation by Full Courts followed by a secret ballot vote, the Centre has said,"...the noble process of advocacy has been reduced to an ordinary job interview akin to an employee seeking promotion. Therefore, this process overlooks the legacy of this profession wherein traditionally 'silk' was awarded for extra-ordinary contributions to the bar and the profession.".Grievance has been raised against the weightage on publications and interview of aspirants seeking designation."...40% has been placed on 'publications' and 'personality and suitability on the basis of interview/interaction', which is highly subjective and need not be an effective parameter to judge the suitability of a candidate...criterion become too subjective and results in an unintentional heartburn amongst lawyers," the application filed through Advocate AK Sharma reads.The practice of campaigning has also been flagged, with the Centre saying that the same has been enabled by doing away with the secret ballot system and replacing it with a Full Court vote."This practice clearly appears to be an unhealthy practice and is embarrassing for members of the Permanent Committee, the Hon'ble Judges and remaining lawyers who witness this campaigning. This campaigning coupled with almost the a mandate of open ballot, has its own embarrassing situations making it uncomfortable for many honourable judge to express their views about the suitability of the candidate.".Further, it is argued that the existing system gives precedence to quantity over quantity in terms of publications, and on a day's performance, with reference to the interviews. The Centre has also frowned upon lawyers applying for the gown, saying,"...conferment of an honour can never be and should not be permitted to be a matter of someone 'applying' for being 'honoured' and appearing for interview to convince the interview committee that he 'deserves to be honoured' based bifurcation of marks in 5 categories.".The Supreme Court is seized of several pleas seeking designation of Senior Advocates in the Supreme Court and High Courts without delay.The concluding paragraph of the 2017 verdict had acknowledged that the framework was not comprehensive, and might need to be revisited based on knowledge gained through experience over time.A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Manoj Misra, and Aravind Kumar had on Thursday noted that there may be different issues in different High Courts, and said that the issue arising out of the judgment's concluding paragraph will be taken up first.At that hearing, the Bench had asked why the Central government was concerned in the matter.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had replied that the issue involved upholding of provisions of the Advocates Act, a Central legislation..Another application in the matter has been moved by the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association (SCAORA), seeking a direction to the Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates (CDSA) to conclude without delay the process of designating Senior Advocates to the top court from applications that were invited in February 2022.The SCAORA application states that pursuant to the 2017 judgment, the top court's CDSA was required to meet at least twice a year. However, after 2019, the next round of applications was sought only in February 2022, and the latter is yet to be completed, it was pointed out.As per the guidelines in the 2017 ruling, there would be a CDSA for each court and all applications for designation would go to the Permanent Committee comprising the Chief Justice, two senior most judges, the Attorney General/Advocate General and an eminent member of the Bar nominated by the other four members..The next hearing in the matter is on Wednesday, February 22.