Punjab & Haryana Bar Council to examine allegations of favouritism in recent Senior Advocate designations

The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana has decided to look into complaints of favouritism and nepotism in the recent designation of Senior Advocates by the High Court.

On October 20, the High Court designated 76 lawyers as Senior Advocates.

210 advocates at the High Court had applied for Senior designation in 2024. After interacting with the eligible candidates, a committee had cleared 64 advocates for the designation. All of them were approved by the Full Court. In addition, the Full Court voted on and cleared 12 more applicants, taking the total to 76.

The Bar Council on Thursday convened an extraordinary meeting of its members to discuss the method adopted by the High Court for designation of the lawyers. It was noted in the meeting that various complaints were received alleging that a proper procedure was not followed in finalising the list.

The allegations of favoritism and nepotism, "coupled with the fact that several meritorious candidates have been left out while many non-deserving candidates have been designated as Senior Advocates", were also taken note of.

However, no conclusive decision was taken in the meeting. It was decided that certain information be sought from the High Court before taking any further action.

Accordingly, the Bar Council has sought the following information from the High Court:

1. The procedure adopted for the selection and designation of Senior Advocates.

2. Whether the same has been carried out as per the old rules or the new rules, and whether in consonance with the judgment in Indira Jaising's case.

3. The marks, if any, awarded to individual candidates, along with the complete data/criteria adopted for evaluation.

4. Whether the marks awarded to the candidates were uploaded/published on the website before being placed before the Full Court of the High Court for taking the final decision on the selection of candidates.

5. Information as to whether any candidates who have neither filed nor appeared in any case in recent years, or who have hardly appeared in the last two years, were considered for designation.

6. Whether the notification inviting applications from advocates for designation as Senior Advocates was duly circulated among the District and Sub-Division Bar Associations.

7. Whether there were any criteria adopted for Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribes and women.

The Bar Council said that it was duty-bound to safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates enrolled on its rolls, in accordance with Section 6(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961.

The meeting was attended by 22 members. One member dissented against the proceedings.