In Brief
This case involved challenges to the system of designating Senior Advocates in Indian courts as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The petitioner, a Senior Advocate since 1986, argued that the designation system violated Articles 14, 15, 18, and 21 of the Constitution and lacked transparent criteria. The Supreme Court upheld Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, as constitutionally valid. However, finding the existing system insufficiently objective, the Court framed uniform nationwide guidelines requiring a Permanent Committee headed by the Chief Justice, including Bar representatives, to assess candidates using a 100-point transparent format evaluating practice years, judicial contributions, publications, and aptitude. The Court eliminated income requirements and set 10 years' practice as the minimum criterion, emphasizing merit-based assessment and stakeholder participation."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.