# Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 667
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-05-13
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025
- **Bench:** Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, S.V.N. Bhatti
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jitender-kalla-v-state-govt-of-nct-of-delhi-and-anr-38705
- **Pages:** 50

## Headnote

(a) Whether the 100-point assessment laid down in Indira Jaising v.
Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 and modified in Indira
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1 for the
designation of Senior Advocates require reconsideration in light
of the experience gained and concerns expressed.
(b) Whether the inclusion of members of the Bar in the Permanent
Committee for designation is legally permissible under Section
16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which confers the power of
designation exclusively on the Supreme Court and High Courts.
(c) Whether advocates practising in trial courts, district courts,
and specialized tribunals-who may not have reported judgments
but possess ability, standing, and experience-should also be
considered for designation, so that designation is not monopolised
by advocates practicing in High Courts and the Supreme Court.
(d) Whether the practice of inviting applications from advocates
for designation is warranted under the scheme of Section 16(2),
or whether designation should only be by conferment by the Court
with the advocate's consent.
Headnotes†
Advocates Act, 1961 - Designation of Senior Advocates -
100-point based assessment as provided in the Indira Jaising
(2017) and Indira Jaising (2023) - Whether the scheme has
achieved its desired objectives:
Held: The directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising v.
Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 as amended by Indira
Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1, shall not be
implemented - The system of a 100-point-based assessment is not
* Author
1934
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
workable and has not achieved the desired objectives, as it tends
to be highly subjective and is not rationally or objectively possible
to assess an advocate's calibre and standing. [Paras 60, 75]
Advocates Act, 1961 - Interview/Interaction and participation
of members of the Bar - Whether fair and legally permissible:
Held: Subjecting an advocate with standing at the Bar to an
interview violates the dignity of the profession - The two members
of the Bar who are a part of the permanent committee will have to
interact with the applicants - The applicants will be their colleagues
by profession - The two members of the Bar are expected to be
of very high standing nevertheless, all the applicants have access
to them - The participation of two senior members of the Bar in
the actual decision-making process of the permanent committee
cannot be supported by law, as Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act
confers this prerogative on the Supreme Court and High Courts.
[Paras 64, 70]
Advocates Act, 1961 - Inclusivity and Diversity - Role of
advocates practicing in Trial and District Courts - Whether
they should be considered for designation:
Held: Designation of Senior Advocates cannot be a monopoly of
advocates practicing in higher constitutional courts like the Supreme
Court and High Courts - Advocates practicing in trial and district
courts or specialized tribunals can possess the qualifications for
designation, and their role is not inferior to the role played by
advocates practicing in High Courts and the Supreme Court - All
High Courts are directed to frame new rules within a period of four
months, which must ensure inclusivity by evolving a mechanism
to consider advocates practicing in the Trial and District Judiciary.
[Paras 78, 79, 84]
Advocates Act, 1961 - Procedure for designation - Applications
and recommendations - Whether applications are warranted
or individual judges can recommend candidates:
Held: The practice of advocates making formal applications for
designation can be continued, as it has practical advantages and
is treated as their consent for being considered - However, the
Full Court can consider and confer designation on a deserving
advocate even in the absence of an application after obtaining
his/her consent - Individual judges of the Supreme Court or High
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1935
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NC

## Text

_Characters 0–39,811 of 108,951. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39811 for what follows._

[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1933 : 2025 INSC 667
Jitender @ Kalla
v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025)
13 May 2025
[Abhay S. Oka,* Ujjal Bhuyan and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
(a) Whether the 100-point assessment laid down in Indira Jaising v.
Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 and modified in Indira
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1 for the
designation of Senior Advocates require reconsideration in light
of the experience gained and concerns expressed.
(b) Whether the inclusion of members of the Bar in the Permanent
Committee for designation is legally permissible under Section
16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which confers the power of
designation exclusively on the Supreme Court and High Courts.
(c) Whether advocates practising in trial courts, district courts,
and specialized tribunals-who may not have reported judgments
but possess ability, standing, and experience-should also be
considered for designation, so that designation is not monopolised
by advocates practicing in High Courts and the Supreme Court.
(d) Whether the practice of inviting applications from advocates
for designation is warranted under the scheme of Section 16(2),
or whether designation should only be by conferment by the Court
with the advocate's consent.
Headnotes†
Advocates Act, 1961 - Designation of Senior Advocates -
100-point based assessment as provided in the Indira Jaising
(2017) and Indira Jaising (2023) - Whether the scheme has
achieved its desired objectives:
Held: The directions contained in paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising v.
Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 as amended by Indira
Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2023) 8 SCC 1, shall not be
implemented - The system of a 100-point-based assessment is not
* Author
1934
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
workable and has not achieved the desired objectives, as it tends
to be highly subjective and is not rationally or objectively possible
to assess an advocate's calibre and standing. [Paras 60, 75]
Advocates Act, 1961 - Interview/Interaction and participation
of members of the Bar - Whether fair and legally permissible:
Held: Subjecting an advocate with standing at the Bar to an
interview violates the dignity of the profession - The two members
of the Bar who are a part of the permanent committee will have to
interact with the applicants - The applicants will be their colleagues
by profession - The two members of the Bar are expected to be
of very high standing nevertheless, all the applicants have access
to them - The participation of two senior members of the Bar in
the actual decision-making process of the permanent committee
cannot be supported by law, as Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act
confers this prerogative on the Supreme Court and High Courts.
[Paras 64, 70]
Advocates Act, 1961 - Inclusivity and Diversity - Role of
advocates practicing in Trial and District Courts - Whether
they should be considered for designation:
Held: Designation of Senior Advocates cannot be a monopoly of
advocates practicing in higher constitutional courts like the Supreme
Court and High Courts - Advocates practicing in trial and district
courts or specialized tribunals can possess the qualifications for
designation, and their role is not inferior to the role played by
advocates practicing in High Courts and the Supreme Court - All
High Courts are directed to frame new rules within a period of four
months, which must ensure inclusivity by evolving a mechanism
to consider advocates practicing in the Trial and District Judiciary.
[Paras 78, 79, 84]
Advocates Act, 1961 - Procedure for designation - Applications
and recommendations - Whether applications are warranted
or individual judges can recommend candidates:
Held: The practice of advocates making formal applications for
designation can be continued, as it has practical advantages and
is treated as their consent for being considered - However, the
Full Court can consider and confer designation on a deserving
advocate even in the absence of an application after obtaining
his/her consent - Individual judges of the Supreme Court or High
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1935
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
Courts cannot recommend candidates for designation, as the
decision is a collective one for the Full Court. [Para 77]
Case Law Cited
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India [2017] 10 SCR 478 :
(2017) 9 SCC 766; Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India [2023]
5 SCR 434 : (2023) 8 SCC 1; Amar Vivek Aggarwal v. High Court
of Punjab & Haryana (2022) 7 SCC 439; E.S. Reddy v. Chief
Secretary, Govt. of Andhra Pradesh [1987] 3 SCR 146 : (1987) 3
SCC 258 - referred to.
List of Acts
Advocates Act, 1961; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Senior Advocate; Designation; Standing at the Bar; Ability; Special
knowledge of law; Interview; Point-based assessment; Permanent
Committee; Full Court; Secret ballot; Trial Courts.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
865 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.01.2024 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPCRL No. 72 of 2024
With
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 454 of 2015 and Interlocutory Application
No. 36111 of 2023 in Miscellaneous Application No. 262 of 2023
in Writ Petition (Civil) 454 of 2015 and Interlocutory Application
No. 45959 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Dr. Anindita Pujari, Mohan v.
Katarki, Aruneshwar Gupta, Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Advs., Rajesh
Ranjan, Ms. Shraddha Deshmukh, Kanu Agarwal, Digvijay Dam,
Chitvan Singhal, Raman Yadav, Rajeshwari Shankar, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, Ms. Indira Jaising, Paras Nath Singh, Shaileshwar Yadav,
Rohit Kumar, Shailendra Singh, Sandeep Goyal, Ashish Pandey,
1936
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Jaydip Pati, Ms. Nina Nariman, Ms. Geetika Kapur, Malak Manish
Bhatt, Ms. Samridhi, Ms. Ensha Chhabra, Ms. Saumya Raj, Rajat
Sehgal, Manish Raghav, Kumar Kartikey, Ms. Neelu Sharma, Sumit
Saddi, Kartik Hooda, Himanshu Singh Dhillon, Anirudh Kaushi, Vivek
Sharma, Milind Kumar, Rajiv Kataria, For M/S. Delhi Law Chambers,
A.P. Dhamija, Ms. Tanya Sharma, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Devvrat,
Ms. Harshita Sharma, Shivam Singh, Devesh Kumar Agnihotri,
Dr. M.V.K. Moorthy, M. Kumar, Ms. Laxmi, Hitendra Nath Rath.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Gaurav Pachnanda, Dr. Anindita
Pujari, Mohan V Katarki, P.S. Patwalia, Ajit Sinha, Shailesh Madiyal,
P.S. Patwalia, Ajit Sinha, Sunil Kumar, Sr. Advs., Mukesh Kumar
Maroria, Annam Venkatesh, Zoheb Hussain, Vivek Gurnani, Mrs.
Astha Singh, Bhuvan Kapoor, Digvijay Dam, Pranav Sachdeva,
Jatin Bhardwaj, Abhay Nair, P Rohit Ram, Vipin Nair, Ms. Sharmila
Upadhyay, Sarvjit Pratap Singh, Sahil Tagotra, Ms. Shreya Bansal,
Ms. Nikita Jaitly, Sujay Jain, Paras Nath Singh, Shaileshwar
Yadav, Rohit Kumar, Shailendra Singh, Adarsh Mishra, Sandeep
Goyal, Ujjawal Gaur, Harshvardhan Vishen Mall, Ravi Raghunath,
Prateek K Chadha, Ahanthem Henry, Ahanthem Rohen Singh,
David Ahongsangbam, Mohan Singh, Aniket Rajput, Ms. Khoisnam
Nirmala Devi, Kumar Mihir, Ashok Mathur, Ms. Deveshi Chand,
Ms. Divija Mahajan, Korada Pramod Kumar, Ankolekar Gurudatta,
Varun Thakur, Ramkaran, Umesh Babu Chaurasiya, Anilendra
Pandey, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal,
R.S. Kamvani, Sanjiv Kumar Jain, Ms. Kavya S. Lokande,
Ms. Madhvi S. Sawant, Jitender Kumar, Amitabh Pandey, Merusagar
Samantaray, Ashok Mathur, Ms. Deveshi Chand, Anandh Kannan
N., Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Prashant
Singh, Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Tuhin, Ms. Radhika Gautam,
Pai Amit, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Abhiyudaya Vats, Tathagata Dutta,
Anirudh Sanganeria, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Avinash Sharma,
Ms. Udita Singh.
Advs. for the Intervenor:
Mathews Nedumpara, Ms. Hemali Kurna, Umesh Babu Chaurasia,
Vipin Nair, Amit Sharma, Nikhil Jain, Kaustav Shukla, Mohd. Aman
Alam, Aditya Narendranath, Mrs. M.B. Ramya, Madhavi Yadav,
Mrs. Deeksha Gupta.
Petitioner-in-person.
Applicant-in-person.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1937
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Abhay S. Oka, J.
INDEX*
FACTUAL BACKGROUND _____________________________
3
A. Indira Jaising - 1 __________________________________
4
B. Indira Jaising - 2 __________________________________
9
C. Order expressing doubts with Indira Jaising-1 and Indira
Jaising-2 and inviting attention of the Hon'ble Chief Justice __ 12
D. Constitution of this Bench ____________________________ 21
E. Interlocutory Applications ____________________________ 23
SUBMISSIONS ______________________________________ 25
CONSIDERATION ____________________________________ 49
A. Scheme of Section 16 of the Advocates Act ______________ 49
(i) Ability ________________________________________ 52
(ii) Standing at the Bar _____________________________ 53
(iii) Special Knowledge of Law ________________________ 54
B. The reasons recorded for exercise of Jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution in Indira Jaising-1 __________ 56
C. 100 Point based Overall Assessment - The basis of Decision
Making __________________________________________ 66
(i) Participation of the Members of the Bar in the process of
100 Points based Overall Assessment _______________ 68
(ii) Duration of Practice _____________________________ 70
(iii) Interview or Interaction ___________________________ 72
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
1938
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(iv) Reported and Unreported Judgments, Pro Bono Work
and Domain Expertise/Experience __________________ 74
(v) Publications ___________________________________ 76
D. Reconsideration in terms of Paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1
and paragraph 51 of Indira Jaising-2 ___________________ 77
E. Judges Recommending Candidates ____________________ 78
F. Whether Applications for Designations are warranted ______ 79
G. Diversity and Inclusivity in the Process __________________ 80
H. Income and Minimum Practice ________________________ 81
I.
Secret Ballot ______________________________________ 82
J. Practice of Senior Advocates using a Special Gown ________ 83
K. Need to frame proper Rules __________________________ 83
L. Permanent Secretariat _______________________________ 85
M. Need to Periodically Review the Procedure ______________ 85
CONCLUSIONS _____________________________________ 86
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1.
By the judgment of this Court in the case of Jitender @ Kalla v.
State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors1 [for short, "Jitender @ Kalla"],
a Bench of two judges of this Court expressed certain concerns
regarding the process of designation of Senior Advocates laid down
in the decision of this Court in the case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme
Court of India2 [for short, "Indira Jaising-1"]. The Bench directed
that the concerns expressed by it be placed before the Hon'ble
Chief Justice of India for considering whether the issues arising
out of the said concerns need to be placed before a larger Bench
1
2025 INSC 249
2
(2017) 9 SCC 766
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1939
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
of appropriate strength. As per the administrative order passed
by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, the issues arising out of the
process of designating Advocates as Senior Advocates raised in
the judgment dated 20th February 2025 in Jitender @ Kalla have
been placed for consideration before this Bench. Before we delve
into the concerns and issues raised by the Bench of two judges, it is
important to consider the factual history that gave rise to the issues
which require consideration.
A.
Indira Jaising - 1
2.
Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short, "the Advocates
Act") creates two classes of Advocates, namely, senior Advocates
and other Advocates. Under Sub-Section (2) of Section 16 of the
Advocates Act, the Supreme Court and High Courts have the power
to designate an Advocate as a Senior Advocate with his consent.
Earlier, the Supreme Court and High Courts, in exercise of powers
under Section 16, followed distinct systems of designating Senior
Advocates. A Writ Petition was filed by Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior
Advocate, before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of
India seeking reforms in the system of designation of senior Advocates
by the Supreme Court of India. There were several other petitions
challenging the processes of designation followed by various High
Courts. The Gujarat High Court Advocates' Association had filed an
Intervention Application challenging the validity of Section 16 of the
Advocates Act and Order IV Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules,
2013 on the ground that the classification of Advocates into two
distinct classes was not based on any reasonable and acceptable
basis and was violative of Articles 14 and 18 of the Constitution of
India. The issues were clubbed together and heard by a bench of
three judges of this Court.
3.
Vide an elaborate judgement in the said case of Indira Jaising-1, a
coordinate Bench upheld the validity of Section 16 of the Advocates
Act and Order IV Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules. This Court
also exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India
with a view to bringing about uniformity in approach in the process
of designation. The guidelines laid down by this Court are as follows:
"73. It is in the above backdrop that we proceed to
venture into the exercise and lay down the following
norms/guidelines which henceforth would govern the
1940
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
exercise of designation of Senior Advocates by the
Supreme Court and all High Courts in the country.
The norms/guidelines, in existence, shall be suitably
modified so as to be in accord with the present.
73.1. All matters relating to designation of Senior Advocates
in the Supreme Court of India and in all the High Courts of
the country shall be dealt with by a Permanent Committee
to be known as "Committee for Designation of Senior
Advocates";
73.2. The Permanent Committee will be headed by the
Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India and consist of two
seniormost Judges of the Supreme Court of India [or High
Court(s), as may be]; the learned Attorney General for India
(Advocate General of the State in case of a High Court)
will be a Member of the Permanent Committee. The above
four Members of the Permanent Committee will nominate
another Member of the Bar to be the fifth Member of the
Permanent Committee;
73.3. The said Committee shall have a permanent
Secretariat, the composition of which will be decided by
the Chief Justice of India or the Chief Justices of the High
Courts, as may be, in consultation with the other Members
of the Permanent Committee;
73.4. All applications including written proposals by the
Hon'ble Judges will be submitted to the Secretariat. On
receipt of such applications or proposals from Hon'ble
Judges, the Secretariat will compile the relevant data
and information with regard to the reputation, conduct,
integrity of the advocate(s) concerned including his/her
participation in pro bono work; reported judgments in which
the advocate(s) concerned had appeared; the number
of such judgments for the last five years. The source(s)
from which information/data will be sought and collected
by the Secretariat will be as decided by the Permanent
Committee;
73.5. The Secretariat will publish the proposal of
designation of a particular advocate in the official website
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1941
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
of the Court concerned inviting the suggestions/views of
other stakeholders in the proposed designation;
73.6. After the database in terms of the above
is compiled and all such information as may be
specifically directed by the Permanent Committee to
be obtained in respect of any particular candidate is
collected, the Secretariat shall put up the case before
the Permanent Committee for scrutiny;
73.7. The Permanent Committee will examine each
case in the light of the data provided by the Secretariat
of the Permanent Committee; interview the advocate
concerned; and make its overall assessment on the
basis of a point-based format indicated below:
Sl.
No.
Matter
Points
1.
Number of years of practise of the
applicant advocate from the date of
enrolment. [10 points for 10-20 years
of practise; 20 points for practise
beyond 20 years]
20
points
2
Judgments (reported and unreported)
which indicate the legal formulations
advanced by the advocate concerned
in the course of the proceedings of
the case; pro bono work done by
the advocate concerned; domain
expertise of the applicant advocate
in various branches of law, such as
Constitutional law, InterState Water
Disputes, Criminal law, Arbitration
law, Corporate law, Family law, Human
Rights, Public Interest Litigation,
International law, law relating to
women, etc.
40
points
3.
Publications by the applicant advocate
15
points
4.
Test of personality and suitability on
the basis of interview/interaction
25
points
1942
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
73.8. All the names that are listed before the Permanent
Committee/cleared by the Permanent Committee will
go to the Full Court.
73.9. Voting by secret ballot will not normally be
resorted to by the Full Court except when unavoidable.
In the event of resort to secret ballot, decisions will be
carried by a majority of the Judges who have chosen
to exercise their preference/choice.
73.10. All cases that have not been favourably considered
by the Full Court may be reviewed/reconsidered after expiry
of a period of two years following the manner indicated
above as if the proposal is being considered afresh;
73.11. In the event a Senior Advocate is guilty of conduct
which according to the Full Court disentitles the Senior
Advocate concerned to continue to be worthy of the
designation, the Full Court may review its decision to
designate the person concerned and recall the same."
(emphasis added)
4.
Recognising that the guidelines may require reconsideration in the
future through suitable deletions/additions, in paragraph 74 of Indira
Jaising-1, it was held that: -
"74. We are not oblivious of the fact that the guidelines
enumerated above may not be exhaustive of the matter
and may require reconsideration by suitable additions/
deletions in the light of the experience to be gained over
a period of time. This is a course of action that we leave
open for consideration by this Court at such point of time
that the same becomes necessary."
B.
Indira Jaising - 2
5.
In view of the aforesaid paragraph 74, several applications
seeking modification of the guidelines conceived in Indira
Jaising-1 were filed. Another coordinate Bench of this Court in
the case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India3 [for short,
3
(2023) 8 SCC 1
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1943
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
"Indira Jaising-2"], reconsidered the guidelines and made the following
modifications:
a.
The norms enumerated in Indira Jaising-1 required 10 points
to be given for all Advocates practicing between 10-20 years
and 20 points for all Advocates who had practiced beyond 20
years. It was argued that, as a result, an applicant with 11
years of practice shall obtain the same number of points as
an applicant with 19 years of practice. In order to iron out this
crease, this Court observed that under this category, one mark
shall be allocated for every year of practice between 10-20 years.
b.
The procedure established in Indira Jaising-I laid down that after
evaluation of the permanent committee, voting by secret ballot
shall be resorted to only in unavoidable circumstances. However,
with time, it was noted that secret ballot voting had become
a frequent practice. Even when the permanent committee
had conducted a proper assessment, the final decision often
depended on the vote of the Full Court. Recognizing the validity
of several concerns raised regarding the use of secret ballot, this
Court reaffirmed that such a method must remain an exception,
and if it is employed, the reasons for doing so must be clearly
recorded by the Full Court.
c.
The criterion listed at Serial No. 2 in the table under Paragraph
73.7 of Indira Jaising-I was considered the most significant,
as it encompassed reported and unreported judgments, pro
bono work, and an applicant's expertise in various branches
of law. Consequently, the marks allocated to this criterion
were increased by 10 points, while the marks assigned for an
Advocate's publications under Serial No. 3 of the said table
were reduced by 10 points.
6.
While disposing of the applications for modifications, the coordinate
Bench reiterated that the process of improvement is a continuous
one and noted:
"51. We only hope that our endeavour to simplify some
aspects of the process results in the designation of more
meritorious candidates. The process of improvement is
a continuous one and we learn from every experience.
This is one more step in the fine-tuning of this exercise and
1944
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
we hope it achieves the purpose. The ultimate objective
is to provide better assistance to litigants and the courts."
(emphasis added)
C.
Order expressing doubts with Indira Jaising-1 and Indira
Jaising-2 and inviting attention of the Hon'ble Chief Justice
7.
In Jitender @ Kalla, the Appellant had filed a Special Leave Petition
(for short, 'SLP') against an order of the High Court wherein the
High Court directed reconsideration of an application for premature
release of another convict. Though the Appellant was not a party to
the petition in which the impugned order was passed, strangely, he
challenged the said order. Further, while filing the SLP, the Appellant
did not disclose that he was directed to undergo imprisonment for
thirty years without remission. Therefore, this Court proceeded on the
footing that it was a case of a simple life sentence. This Court passed
an order dated 19th March 2024, issuing notice and exempting the
Appellant from surrendering. Thereafter, on an application being filed
by the 1st informant, this Court in its order dated 2nd September 2024
noted that material misrepresentations were made by suppressing
the fact that the Appellant was not a party to the proceedings before
the High Court and had been sentenced to a fixed term of 30 years.
Accordingly, this Court issued notice to the Advocate-on-Record to
explain his conduct.
8.
Pursuant to the order, the concerned Advocate-on-Record filed an
affidavit dated 9th September 2024. In view of the contents of the
said affidavit, this Court on 30th September 2024 issued notice to
the Senior Advocate (who earlier also appeared as an Advocate for
the petitioner in Jitender @ Kalla before his designation on 14th
August, 2024) appearing in the matter to explain what was stated in
the affidavit of the Advocate-on-Record. This Court also recorded that
in at least half a dozen cases, blatant false statements were made in
the writ petitions and Special Leave Petitions that were filed seeking
relief of premature release. The concerned Senior Advocate filed his
affidavit. Subsequently, in its order dated 21st October, 2024, this
Court permitted the concerned Senior Advocate to withdraw and file
a better affidavit explaining his conduct. This Court also recorded that
the case raises issues of great concern, insofar as the responsibility
of Advocates-on-Record of this Court is concerned.
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1945
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
9.
Thereafter, on 30.11.2024, the concerned Senior Advocate filed an
affidavit tendering an unconditional apology. As recorded by this
Court in its judgment in Jitender @ Kalla, the concerned Senior
Advocate had previously made misrepresentations before this Court
as recorded in the common order dated 1st October 2024 passed
in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.631 of 2023, SLP (Crl.) @ D.No.4464 of
2024, SLP (Crl.) No.1775 of 2024, and Writ Petition (Crl.) No.195
of 2024. Further, misrepresentations made by the concerned Senior
Advocate were also recorded by this Court in order dated 29th
November 2024 passed in Writ Petition (Crl.) No.418 of 2024, and
orders dated 18th November 2024 and 3rd January, 2025 passed in
SLP (Crl.) Nos.1484-1496 of 2024.
10. Considering the conduct of the concerned Senior Advocate, a
contention was raised by Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor
General of India for reconsideration of earlier decisions of this Court
in Indira Jaising - I and Indira Jaising - II, and another decision
in the case of Amar Vivek Aggarwal v. High Court of Punjab &
Haryana and Ors4.
11. This Court in its judgment dated 20th February 2025 in Jitender
@ Kalla was of the view that the conduct of the Senior Advocate
reflected from the orders of this Court raised an important question of
whether the decisions of this Court in the case of Indira Jaising - I
and Indira Jaising - II, which lay down the guidelines for designation
of Senior Advocates by this Court and High Courts across the
country under the 1961 Act, need reconsideration. A question also
arose about whether the regime set up under the said decisions
has worked effectively. This Court was of the view that a serious
introspection was required to answer the question of whether the
Rules framed in terms of the said decisions have ensured that only
deserving Advocates are being designated.
12. This Court, accordingly, in paragraph 43 recorded its doubts and
concerns with the judgments of this Court in Indira Jaising - I and
Indira Jaising - II, and observed thus:
"43. We are recording our concerns based on submissions
made across the Bar. We again reiterate that we mean
4
(2022) 7 SCC 439
1946
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
no disrespect to the two binding decisions, and we are
recording our concerns only to enable the Hon'ble Chief
Justice of India, to decide whether the doubts expressed
by us need consideration by an appropriate larger Bench.
We flag our concerns as follows:
a) As can be seen from sub-section (2) of Section 16, prima
facie, the scheme of the provision is that no advocate can
seek designation, but the privilege of designation has to
be conferred by this Court or High Courts with his consent.
In paragraph 2 of Indira Jaising-II, this Court held that
designation as a senior advocate in India is a privilege
awarded as a mark of excellence to advocates who have
distinguished themselves and have made a significant
contribution to the development of the legal profession.
Therefore, the question that needs serious consideration
is whether the Court should permit applications to be
made for grant of designation, though the statute does
not contemplate that. If the legislature intended to allow
advocates to make applications for designation, sub-section
(2) of Section 16 would not have provided for this Court
or High Courts to take the consent of advocates before
designation.
b) Paragraph 73.7 provides for an advocate who has
applied for designation to appear before the Permanent
Committee for an interview/interaction to test his personality
and suitability. If an advocate, by virtue of his standing
at the Bar, his ability or special knowledge, deserves
designation as a senior advocate, the question which arises
is, by making such an advocate appear for an interview,
are we not compromising on the dignity of the advocate?
Are we not converting the process of designation into a
selection process?
c) It is doubtful whether by interviewing a candidate for
a few minutes, his personality or suitability can be really
tested. 25 points out of 100 are assigned for interview/
interaction, constituting 1/4th of the total points.
d) As recorded in paragraph 73.7, the duty of the
Permanent Committee is to make its overall assessment of
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1947
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
the advocate concerned based on a points-based formula.
No other method of making an overall assessment has
been provided. No one can dispute 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 an advocate with the disciplinary committee
of the Bar Councils. The question is how the cases of
such advocates can be considered by the Permanent
Committee. Even if members of the Permanent Committee
know that the applicant advocate lacks integrity, is not fair,
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 that count. If
such an advocate excels at the time of the interview or
otherwise renders excellent performance, he cannot be
given lesser marks because the candidate lacks integrity,
character or fairness. The reason is that 25 marks are
to be assigned not based on his performance before the
Court or his general reputation but on his performance
during the interview/interaction.
e) As noted earlier, prior to 31st January 1974, the criteria
in sub-section (2) of Section 16 was based on ability,
experience and standing at the Bar. That was substituted
with effect from 31st January 1974. After the amendment,
mere experience in terms of the number of years of practice
cannot be relevant. However, "experience in law" needs
consideration. Thus, mere experience in terms of number
of years of practice is not sufficient. Our concern is whether
10 or 20 points should be mechanically assigned only
based on experience or the number of years of practice.
It is worth considering whether only the number of years
put in practice has any nexus with 'standing' within the
meaning of Section 16(2). Further, it is pertinent to note that
Sr. No.1 in paragraph 73.7 merely discusses the number
of years of practice. The criteria adopted is not of actual
years of active practice. Therefore, an advocate who has
not been in active practice for 20 years or more will still
1948
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
get 20 marks because his registration as an advocate has
been for more than 20 years.
f) It is a usual experience that applicants submit many
judgments in which they have appeared and submit copies
of books and many articles written by them. The five
members of the Permanent Committee are expected to
go through every judgment submitted by the candidate to
assign 50 marks. To assign marks for publications, they are
expected to go through many articles and books. Whether
three senior judges, including the Chief Justice and two
senior advocates, should spend hours together for one
candidate is a question that needs serious consideration.
g) It is true that the overall assessment made by the
Permanent Committee in terms of points is placed
before the Full Court. The decision of the Full Court
may not necessarily be based on the points assigned by
the Permanent Committee. Still, the Full Court cannot
altogether ignore the assessment made by the Permanent
Committee. When the points-based assessment is not
free from defects, the question is whether it can form the
basis of assessment of an advocate.
h) Another issue is about the prohibition of secret ballot.
The Judges consider the applications in Full Court. The
question arises as to whether the Judges should openly
discuss the merits and demerits of those who appear before
them on the judicial side. Therefore, the issue of permitting
voting by secret ballot needs serious reconsideration.
i) There is one more serious area of concern. Whether
the guidelines give sufficient opportunity to the advocates
practising in our Trial Courts to get designated. There
cannot be any dispute that we have very eminent lawyers
practising exclusively before our Trial Courts who have
the ability, standing and experience in law. They are
outstanding public prosecutors and defence lawyers. In
most cases, their arguments may not always have legal
formulations, as reflected in the judgments in cases wherein
they appear. The submissions will necessarily be based
on facts. They will not have reported judgments to their
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1949
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
credit. Such advocates do not stand to gain sufficient
points against Sr. No. 2 in paragraph 73.7. We are of the
view that designation under sub-section (2) of Section 16
cannot be the monopoly of the advocates practising in
higher Constitutional Courts like this Court and the High
Courts. Chapter 6, in part VI of the Constitution of India,
in a sense, gives the status of Constitutional Courts to our
trial and district courts."
13. Based on the doubts and concerns expressed in paragraph 43 of
the judgment dated 20th February 2025, this Court, in paragraph 45,
observed thus:
"45. Considering what we have observed in paragraph
no. 43 above, we direct the Registrar (Judicial) to place
a copy of this judgment before Hon'ble the Chief Justice
of India. It is for the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, to
consider whether the issues flagged by us deserve to
be considered by a Bench of appropriate strength."
D.
Constitution of this Bench
14. The judgment of this Court in Jitender @ Kalla dated 20th February
2025 was placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. Accordingly,
pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India, the
issues flagged in paragraph 43 of Jitender @ Kalla have been listed
before this Bench. This Bench, in its order dated 25th February
2025, issued notice to various parties. The relevant part of the said
order is as follows:
"2. Considering paragraphs 43 and 45 of the judgment
dated 20th February, 2025 passed in Criminal Appeal
No.865/20252, issue notice to the respondents in Writ
Petition (C) No.454/2015. As far as the Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record Association is concerned, it is
represented today. Therefore, notice to the Supreme Court
Advocates-on-Record Association is not required to be
issued. Shri Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General
states that he will intimate to the learned Attorney General
for India as well as the Union of India so that they will
be represented on the next date. Therefore, notice is not
required to be issued to the learned Attorney General
1950
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and the Union of India as well. As far as the rest of the
respondents (except the High Courts) in Writ Petition (C)
No.454/2015 are concerned, notice be issued to them
through email informing them that the hearing will be on
19th March, 2025. A copy of the judgment dated 20th
February, 2025 in Criminal Appeal No.865/20252 as well
as this order shall be forwarded along with the notice
through e-email."
E.
Interlocutory Applications
15. With further experience being gained on the process for designating
Senior Advocates, several interlocutory applications were filed seeking
modification of the guidelines laid down by this Court and challenging
the designation process conducted by various High Courts. In this
judgment, we are focusing on the system of designation of Senior
Advocates and the concerns expressed about the guidelines laid
down by this Court. In addition to the issues flagged in paragraph 43
of Jitender @ Kalla, we will be addressing the issues raised in the
following applications:
a)
IA 45959/2022 in IA No.145730-31/2021 in MA No.1502/2020
in WP (C) 454/2015
IA 145730-31 in MA 1502/2020 arises out of the designation
process conducted at the High Court of Patna, seeking
modification of the guidelines laid down in the cases of Indira
Jaising I and II to bring objectivity, transparency and fairness.
These applications were dismissed by the Order of the Registrar
dated 23rd December 2021 in terms of Order XV Rule 5 of
the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, observing that the sum and
substance of these IAs was in the nature of seeking review of
the judgment in Indira Jaising II. IA 45959/2022 is an appeal
against the Registrar's order dated 23rd December 2021.
b)
IA No. 55879/2023 in MA No.1502/2020 in WP (C) 454/2015
These applications pray for the reconsideration and modification
of guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in light of the
observations made in Paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising I. The
applicant has made several suggestions, including giving special
privilege to Advocates with 30 years' experience, deleting the
criteria for publications, deleting the marking on the basis of
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
1951
Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr.
an interview, conducting voting by secret ballot, designating
Advocates without requiring submission of applications and
designating mofussil Advocates as well.
c)
IA No. 36111/2023 in MA No. 262/2023 in WP (C) 454/2015
These applications are filed by the Union of India seeking
modification of the judgment of this Court in the case of Indira
Jaising I, contending that allotment of 40% of weightage to
publications and interview is highly subjective and need
not be an effective parameter to judge the suitability of a
candidate. Directions are sought to the effect that the applicant's
performance shall be evaluated in a Full Court meeting by
secret ballot method.
SUBMISSIONS
A.
Submissions by the Learned Attorney General for India
16. We have heard the learned Attorney General for India. He submitted
that the convention before Indira Jaising - I was to ask an Advocate
for his consent before designating him as a Senior Advocate. However,
due to the large number of Advocates joining the Bar, he submitted
that the earlier convention of approaching Advocates instead of
inviting applications would not be feasible. He further submitted that
designation as a Senior Advocate is a milestone in the career of an
Advocate, and asking an Advocate for consent should not be the only
way of conferring designation. He acknowledged that the existing
system has flaws but submitted that by inviting applications, the
system has opened the doors for an aspirational class of lawyers that
he terms as the 'middle class' to apply for designation. He submitted
that there are expanding disciplines within the legal profession, and
the number of talented Advocates continues to grow. He submitted
that the system of inviting applications holds relevance for such
aspiring Advocates, and it is necessary to promote them to grow in
the profession. He submitted that this Court has opened the system
to such Advocates by permitting the invitation of applications.
17. Regarding the current system of designation, the learned Attorney
General submitted that he is personally uncomfortable with the idea
of an interview/interaction and finds it embarrassing, as all applicants
are his peers, whom he knows personally. If the interview is to be
1952
[2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
retained, the learned Attorney General would submit that personal
questions regarding how the applicant is as a person should be
asked instead of legal questions. He submitted that the factors of
the marking system can change over the years. He submitted that
Section 16 of the Advocates Act is merely a signpost which gives
a broad roadmap for designation and that this Court would have to
use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to fill
gaps and improve the system as and when needed. He submitted
that the inclusion of Advocates in the Permanent Committee is not
restricted by Section 16 of the Advocates Act and has been made by
this Court using powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
18. The learned Attorney General has also shared with this Court his
experiences while being part of the Permanent Committee for the
designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court.