The Supreme Court on Thursday flagged various loopholes in the present process for designation of lawyers as Senior Advocates..The bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan referred the matter to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna for considering whether a larger bench needs be constituted to decide the issues raised by it."We mean no disrespect towards the two binding decisions [in Indira Jaising case] and we are recording our concerns only to enable the Chief Justice to decide whether the doubt expressed by us needs to be considered by a larger bench," the Court said..The Bench observed that no advocate can seek designation as it is a privilege that has to be conferred by the Supreme Court or High Court with the lawyer's consent.It expressed doubt on whether an interview of a few minutes was sufficient to test the personality or suitability of a candidate, while noting that 25 of the 100 points are assigned for interviews."The duty of Permanent Committee is to make its overall assessment of the advocate concerned based on point based formula. No other method of making overall assessment has been provided," it observed..The Court further said that it cannot be disputed that an advocate who lacks integrity or does not possess a quality of fairness is disentitled to designation."The reason is simple as such an advocate cannot be held to have any standing at the bar. Moreover, there may be complaints pending against the advocate in the disciplinary committees of the bar councils. The question is how the cases of such advocates can be considered by the Permanent Committee," the Court askedIn this regard, the Court said there is no scope to reduce the points of such lawyers while evaluating them for Senior designation."Even if members of the Permanent Committee know that the applicant-advocate lacks integrity or is not fair, or does not act as an officer of the court or against whom complaints are pending for professional misconduct, there is no scope to reduce the points on the account if such an advocate excels at the time of interview or otherwise renders excellent performance, he cannot be given lesser marks because the candidate lacks integrity."The reason is that 25 marks are assigned not on the basis of performance before the court or the lawyer's general reputation, but on the basis of performance during the interview, it added..The Court also said that it needs to be considered whether a Chief Justice and other senior judges should spend hours to go through judgments or articles submitted by the lawyers."It is usual practice that applicants submit many judgments in which they have appeared and submit copies of books and many articles written by them, if members of the Permanent Committee are expected to go through every judgement submitted by the candidates to assign 50 marks. To assign marks on publications, they are expected to go through many articles and books. Whether 3 senior judges including the Chief Justice should spend hours together for 1 candidate is a question that needs serious consideration."In conclusion, the Court said that the question of assessment has to be considered by the members of the full court."When the points based assessment is not free from defects, the question is whether it can form the basis of assessment of an advocate," it asked..Meanwhile, the Court referred the issue pertaining to Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra to the CJI. Malhotra has been in the eye of storm for allegedly making false statements in various cases."Regarding the designation of Rishi Malhotra, we leave it to the Hon'ble CJI to take a call," Justice Oka said.The Court had earlier issued notice to Malhotra and sought an explanation from him after an AoR told the Court that he had signed off on an appeal at Malhotra's instance, which was later found to have omitted certain facts.It was in this case that the top court later raised concerns over the process to designate lawyers. .In the same matter, the Court today laid down the duties of Advocates-on-Record (AoR), stating,"An AoR is answerable to this Court since he has a unique position under the Rules [Supreme Court Rules] of 2013. Therefore, when incorrect facts are stated in the petitions or when material facts or documents are suppressed, the AoR cannot shift the entire blame on either the client or his instructing advocates, therefore, it is his duty to be cautious [and] careful.".AoRs can't shift blame on client or instructing advocates: Supreme Court.Senior Advocate S Muralidhar was amicus curiae in the case.Senior Advocate Vipin Nair and advocate Amit Sharma appeared for Supreme Court Advocates On Record Association (SCAORA)..[Read Judgment]
