MS. INDIRA JAISING v. GENERAL & Ors.

2.1 The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petitions (Civil) Nos. 33 and 819 of 2016 (filed by the High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association, Shillong) is with regard to the amendment of the guidelines framed by the High Court of Meghalaya governing the issue of designation of Senior B Advocates. The grievance specifically is directed against the amendment dated 31st March, 2015 by which the requirement of 05 years' practice in any Court within the jurisdiction the High Court of Meghalaya has been done away with and an Advocate practicing in any court of the country has been made eligible. There is a further amendment made on 13th January, 2016 by C which any Senior Advocate of any High Court in the country can sponsor any advocate in any court in India to be designated as a Senior Advocate by the High Court of Meghalaya. Even at first blush, the guidelines have been couched, by the amendments thereto, in too wide terms for acceptance. [Paras 26, 27) [523-B- D DJ

2.2 The power of designating any person as a Senior Advocate is always vested in the Full Court either of the Supreme Court or of any High Court. If an extraordinary situation arises requiring the Full Court of a High Court to depart from the usual practice of designating an advocate who has practiced in that High E Court or in a court subordinate to that High Court, it may always be open to the Full Court to so act unless the norms expressly prohibit such a course of action. If the power is always there in the Full Court, there is no reason why an express conferment of the same by the Rules/Guidelines is necessary. It is instances like these that bring the system of designation of Senior Advocates into disrepute. Beyond the above, it is not considered necessary to say anything further as the Counsel appearing for the High Court of Meghalaya has submitted, on instructions received, that the High Court would be willing to reconsider the changes brought in by the amendments and remedy the situation G by taking appropriate measures. It is left open for the High Court of Meghalaya to act accordingly and close the writ petitions (Nos. 33 and 819 of 2016) in terms of the said liberty. [Para 28) [523-D GJ F

#3. \Vith regard to the norms and guidelines prevailing in H MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL 485 different High Courts, it is evident that varying periods of practice A and different slabs of income have been, inter alia, prescribed as minimum conditions of eligibility for consideration for designation as a Senior Advocate. If merit and ability is to be the determining factor, in addition to standing in the Bar and expertise in any specialized field of law, there should be no insistence on any B minimum income as a condition of eligibility. The income generated by a lawyer would depend on the field of his practice and it is possible that a lawyer doing pro bono work or who specializes in a particular field may generate a lower return of income than his counterpart who may be working in another field of law. Insistence on any particular income, therefore, may be a C self-defeating exercise. Insofar as age is concerned, instead of having a minimum age with a provision of relaxation in an appropriate case it would be better to go by the norm of 10 years practice at the Bar which is also what is prescribed by Article 217 of the Constitution as a condition of eligibility for being D considered for appointment as a Judge of the High Court. [Para 34] (527-D-G]

4.1 The following norms/guidelines are laid down which henceforth would govern the 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 E modified so as to be in accord with the present. I. 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"; F II. The Permanent Committee will be headed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice oflndia and consist of two senior most Judges of the Supreme Court of India (or High Court(s), as may be); the learned Attorney General for G 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; H 486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 10 S.C.R. A B c D E F G H III. 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; IV. 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'blc 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 concerned Advocate(s) 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; V. The Secretariat will publish the proposal of designation of a particular Advocate in the official website of the concerned Court inviting the suggestions/views of other stakeholders in the proposed designation; VI. After the data-base 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; VII. The Permanent Committee will examine each case in the light of the data provided by the Secretariat of the Permanent Committee; interview the concerned Advocate; and make its overall assessment on the basis of a point-based format.

#1. Number of years of practice of the applicant advocate from the date of enrolment. (20 pohits)

#2. Judgments-Reported and unreported. (40 points)

#3. Publications by the applicant advocate. (15 points) MS. INDIRA JAISING v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ·THROUGH SECRETARY GENERAL 487

#4. Test of personality and suitability on the basis of A interview/interaction.(25 points) VIII. All the names that are listed before the Permanent Committee/cleared by the Permanent Committee will go to the Full Court. IX. Voting by secret ballot will not normally be resorted B 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. X. All cases that have not been favourably considered by C the Full Court may be reviewed/reconsidered after expiry of a period of two years following the manner indicated as if the proposal is being considered afresh. XI. In the event a Senior Advocate is guilty of conduct which according to the Full Court disentitles the Senior D Advocate concerned to continue to be worthy of the designation the Full Court may review its decision to designate the concerned person and recall the same. [Para 35) [527-G-H; 528-A-H; 529-A-H; 530-A-D]

4.2 The guidelines enumerated may not be exhaustive of E 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 is left open for consideration by this Court at such point of time that the same becomes necessary. [Para 36) (530-E]