Designation as Senior Advocate: Section 16, and Indira Jaising

Facts. Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of 2015 challenged the manner in which advocates were designated under section 16, contending that the existing practice of discussion followed by a secret ballot of the Full Court was opaque and arbitrary.

Held. The Court laid down guidelines for itself and for all High Courts.

The Permanent Committee. All matters relating to designation are to be dealt with by a Permanent Committee known as the Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates, headed by the Chief Justice, with the two senior-most judges of the Court concerned and the Attorney General, or the Advocate General in a High Court. Those four nominate a fifth member from the Bar. The Committee has a permanent Secretariat.

The point-based format, set out in paragraph 73.7 of the judgment, out of one hundred:

The Full Court. All names cleared by the Permanent Committee go to the Full Court, and voting by secret ballot is not normally to be resorted to except when unavoidable.

That is the judgment MU names, and a student must be able to state the Committee and the four criteria with their marks.

Indira Jaising-2: the order of 12 May 2023

Applications were filed to modify the point system. The order of 12 May 2023 was made by Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Aravind Kumar JJ.

The Court said its remit was only to fine-tune the criteria, not to reopen the 2017 judgment. What it changed:

Publications fell from fifteen points to five. The Court held fifteen too high, because most practising advocates find little time for academic writing and publications are not a reflection of advocacy skill. It widened the criterion to include teaching assignments and guest courses at law schools rather than abolishing it.

The ten points released were added to the second criterion, which rose from forty to fifty. The Court also clarified that judgments and not mere orders are to be considered, since judgments deal with contested legal issues, and that what counts is the advocate's actual role in the matter and not the number of appearances.

Years of practice. Following an earlier order of 4 May 2022, one mark is given for each year between ten and twenty, rather than a flat ten for the whole band, so that an applicant of nineteen years is not treated the same as one of eleven.

The interview kept its twenty-five points, but the number of interviews was restricted to what the Permanent Committee found feasible.

Secret ballot. The Court held that the elaborate Committee exercise would serve no purpose if the ultimate decision were taken by secret ballot.

Other directions. Candidates may file five of their best synopses; a concession on the number of appearances is to be given to advocates practising before specialised tribunals; diversity, particularly gender and first-generation lawyers, is to be considered; the exercise is to be carried out at least once a year; and the Full Court's power of suo motu designation of exceptional and eminent advocates is not taken away.

Jitender @ Kalla: the position as it now stands

Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi, 2025 INSC 667, was decided on 13 May 2025 by Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan and S.V.N. Bhatti JJ.

Held, and this is the sentence that matters: the Court directed that the directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising-1 as amended by Indira Jaising-2, that is the point-based format, shall not be implemented.

In its place the High Courts were directed to frame Rules within four months, keeping in view these guidelines:

• The decision to confer designation is that of the Full Court of the High Court or of the Supreme Court.
• Applications found eligible by the Permanent Secretariat go before the Full House. An endeavour is made to reach consensus; failing consensus, the decision is by a democratic method of voting, and whether a secret ballot is used in a given case is left to the High Court.
• The minimum qualification of ten years' practice fixed by Indira Jaising-1 needs no reconsideration.
• Advocates may continue to apply, the application being treated as consent; and the Full Court may also confer designation without an application in a deserving case.
• Under the scheme of section 16(2) there is no scope for individual judges to recommend a candidate.
• At least one designation exercise every calendar year.

Two transitional points complete it. Processes already initiated under the two Indira Jaising decisions continue to be governed by them, but no new process is to be initiated and no new application considered until a proper regime of Rules is framed. And the Permanent Secretariat proposed in Indira Jaising-1 continues, because collecting the data matters.

How to answer a question on this topic

MU's syllabus names the 2017 case, so the 2017 guidelines must be stated. But an answer that stops there states a system the Supreme Court has directed shall not be implemented.

The safe structure is a three-step story.

1. Section 16 gives a bare discretion with no procedure, which produced opacity and inconsistency.
2. Indira Jaising-1 (2017) structured it: Permanent Committee, point-based format out of a hundred, secret ballot to be exceptional. Indira Jaising-2 (2023) fine-tuned it: publications fifteen to five, judgments forty to fifty, one mark per year in the ten to twenty band, interview retained, secret ballot criticised.
3. Jitender @ Kalla (2025) directed that paragraph 73.7 as amended shall not be implemented, and required the High Courts to frame Rules, with the Full Court deciding, consensus preferred, ten years' practice retained, and at least one exercise a year.

That answer is complete, current, and shows exactly why the marks are where they are.

A worked example

Vandana has practised for sixteen years, mostly before the National Company Law Tribunal. She has two published articles, has taught a guest course at a law school, and appears in the Bombay High Court less often than a general practitioner would.

Under Indira Jaising-1 (2017) she scores ten of twenty for years of practice, since sixteen years falls in the flat ten to twenty band. Her tribunal practice produces few reported High Court judgments, so she does badly on the forty-point criterion. Her two articles help her on the fifteen-point publications head.

Under Indira Jaising-2 (2023) she does better. Years of practice gives her one mark per year, so six of the twenty rather than a flat ten in that band. Publications now carry only five points, but the criterion covers her guest course as well as her articles. The second criterion is now worth fifty, and the Court directed that advocates practising before specialised tribunals, and the National Company Law Tribunal is named in the judgment, are to be given a concession on the number of appearances, and that the role played rather than the number of appearances is what counts.

Under Jitender @ Kalla (2025) none of that arithmetic is done, because the point-based format is not to be implemented. Her application goes to the Full Court of the High Court under whatever Rules that Court has framed, an endeavour is made at consensus, and failing consensus the Full Court votes. Her sixteen years clears the ten-year minimum, which Indira Jaising-1 fixed and which the 2025 Bench expressly left standing.

And a practical consequence. If her High Court has not yet framed Rules, no new application can be considered, because the 2025 judgment directs that new processes shall not be initiated until a proper regime of Rules is framed.

What beginners get wrong

The 2025 judgment did not abolish designation. It abolished the point system and returned the decision to the Full Court under Rules.

It did not overrule Indira Jaising-1 wholesale. It expressly kept the ten-year minimum, kept the Permanent Secretariat, and left processes already initiated to be governed by the earlier decisions.

The 2023 order was not an appeal or a review. The Court said its remit was to fine-tune, not to reopen the 2017 judgment.

There is a wrong document in circulation. A separate order in the same writ petition dated 2 January 2017 decides an application to recall and contains none of the guidelines. The judgment is of 12 October 2017.

Designation is not a promotion. Section 16(3) restricts practice; chapter [Senior Counsel, Junior Counsel, Advocate-on-Record and Amicus Curiae] sets those restrictions out.

Quick revision

• Section 16(2): designation by the Supreme Court or a High Court, with consent, on ability, standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law. No procedure in the Act.
• Indira Jaising-1, (2017) 9 SCC 766, 12 October 2017, Ranjan Gogoi J: Permanent Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates, headed by the Chief Justice with the two senior-most judges and the Attorney General or Advocate General, plus a fifth member from the Bar; a permanent Secretariat; a point-based format of 20 for years of practice, 40 for judgments, pro bono work and domain expertise, 15 for publications and 25 for interview; secret ballot to be exceptional.
• Indira Jaising-2, 12 May 2023: publications 15 to 5, widened to include teaching; judgments 40 to 50; one mark per year between ten and twenty; interview kept at 25 but interviews restricted; five best synopses; concession for specialised tribunal practice; diversity; at least once a year; suo motu power preserved.
• Jitender @ Kalla, 2025 INSC 667, 13 May 2025: paragraph 73.7 as amended shall NOT be implemented; High Courts to frame Rules in four months; Full Court decides; consensus first, then democratic voting, secret ballot left to the High Court; ten years' practice retained; application optional, designation possible dehors an application; no individual judge may recommend under section 16(2); one exercise every calendar year; pending processes continue under the old decisions but no new process until Rules are framed.

Test yourself

1. State the composition of the Permanent Committee laid down in 2017. The Chief Justice of the Court concerned as its head, the two senior-most judges of that Court, and the Attorney General for India or, in a High Court, the Advocate General of the State. Those four members nominate a fifth member from the Bar. The Committee has a permanent Secretariat.

2. Give the point-based format as laid down in 2017 and as it stood after 2023. In 2017: twenty points for years of practice, forty for judgments, pro bono work and domain expertise, fifteen for publications and twenty-five for the interview. After 2023: twenty for years of practice but at one mark per year in the ten to twenty band, fifty for judgments and domain expertise, five for publications, widened to include teaching, and twenty-five for the interview.

3. What did the Supreme Court direct in May 2025 about that format? That the directions in paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising-1 as amended by Indira Jaising-2 shall not be implemented, and that the High Courts should frame Rules within four months in accordance with the guidelines it set out.

4. Under the 2025 guidelines, who decides and how? The Full Court of the High Court or of the Supreme Court. Eligible applications go before the Full House, an endeavour is made to arrive at consensus, and failing consensus the decision is by a democratic method of voting, with the use of a secret ballot in a given case left to the High Court.

5. Was the ten-year minimum disturbed in 2025? No. The Court said in terms that the minimum qualification of ten years of practice fixed by Indira Jaising-1 needs no reconsideration.

6. May an advocate be designated without applying? Yes. The 2025 judgment provides that the practice of applying may continue, the application being treated as consent, and that additionally the Full Court may consider and confer designation dehors an application in a deserving case.

7. What is the position of an application made today in a High Court that has not yet framed Rules? It cannot be considered. The 2025 judgment directs that processes already initiated under the Indira Jaising decisions continue under them, but that no new process shall be initiated and no new application considered unless there is a proper regime of Rules framed by the High Court.