Breaking SUPREME COURT REAFFIRMS PUBLIC DOMAIN PROTECTION FOR DIGITAL LAWS
New Delhi · Wednesday, 23 September 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law - free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2017-10-12 partly_allowed

Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court of India through Secretary General and Ors

Bench: 3 — Ranjan Gogoi

In Brief

Indira Jaising, a Senior Advocate since 1986, challenged the system for designating Senior Advocates in Indian courts as arbitrary and unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that while Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 granting courts power to designate Senior Advocates is valid and does not violate Articles 14, 15, 18 or 21, the subjective exercise must be anchored in objective criteria. The Court rejected mandatory income and age requirements, retaining 10 years' practice as the sole eligibility threshold. It directed the establishment of a permanent Committee for Designation, headed by the Chief Justice and including senior judges, the Attorney General, and a Bar representative, which would assess candidates on a 100-point scale covering years of practice, quality of judgments and pro bono work, publications, and suitability. The reformed system aims to ensure transparency, merit-based selection, and public confidence in the profession's premier ranks.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Constitutional Law Legal Profession Bar Standards Equality Before Law Administrative Law Judicial Conduct

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login