In Brief
Indira Jaising, a Senior Advocate, petitioned that the system of designating Senior Advocates by judicial vote was arbitrary, violated equality principles, and created an unfair class distinction. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 permitting designation, holding it a legitimate recognition of professional merit based on ability, standing, and expertise—not an impermissible title. However, the Court recognized flaws in ad-hoc voting and established uniform guidelines for all courts: a Permanent Committee (headed by Chief Justice, including judges, Attorney General, and a Bar nominee) would evaluate candidates using objective criteria (years of practice, reported judgments, pro bono work, expertise, publications, and interview assessment) on a 100-point scale, replacing secretive voting with structured, transparent merit-based evaluation.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.