Jitender v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Supreme Court of India, 13 May 2025, 3 judges, 2025 INSC 667
Using the power reserved in Indira Jaising-1, a three-judge Bench directed that the 100 point-based assessment for designating Senior Advocates shall not be implemented, and asked the High Courts to frame fresh Rules giving the decision to the Full Court.
Facts
In Jitender @ Kalla (judgment of 20 February 2025), a two-judge Bench noticed repeated misrepresentations by a recently designated Senior Advocate and recorded concerns about the designation scheme laid down by three-judge Benches in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) and its 2023 modification. It directed that the judgment be placed before the Chief Justice of India to decide whether the issues should be considered by a Bench of appropriate strength. On the administrative order of the Chief Justice, the issues were placed before this three-judge Bench, which also heard interlocutory applications, including one by the Union of India and one by Patna advocates, seeking modification of the guidelines. Ms. Indira Jaising objected that the earlier judgments could not be reviewed without a review petition and that reconsideration beyond paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1 needed a larger Bench.
Questions before the Court
- Could the Court revisit the guidelines of Indira Jaising-1 and Indira Jaising-2 without a review petition or a reference to a larger Bench?
- Is the 100 point-based assessment by a Permanent Committee, including interviews and the participation of Bar members, consistent with Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act and workable?
- Should advocates be allowed to apply for designation, and may individual Judges recommend candidates?
- How should the Full Court decide, including on secret ballot, and what Rules should govern designation?
What the Court held
- The Indira Jaising directions were issued under Article 142 as an experiment, never meant to be final or a substitute for statutory Rules. Paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1 reserved reconsideration by the Court, so deleting paragraph 73.7 in exercise of that reserved power does not amount to review or recall of those decisions.
- The point-based assessment has not achieved its object and tends to be subjective: points for years of practice are not a rational criterion, a brief interview cannot test personality and suitability and offends the dignity of the profession, and the Committee cannot reliably assess judgments and synopses. Paragraph 73.7, as amended, shall not be implemented.
- Under Section 16(2), the decision to designate belongs to the Full Court. Applications may continue and count as consent; the Full Court may also designate a deserving advocate without an application, with consent. Individual Judges cannot recommend candidates.
- Consensus should be attempted; failing it, the Full Court decides by majority vote, and whether to use a secret ballot is left to the High Courts in the facts of each case. The minimum of 10 years of practice stays, and at least one designation exercise should be held every calendar year.
- High Courts should frame Rules within four months, consulting the Bar, and this Court must amend its own Rules. Processes already begun continue under the old decisions, but no new process may start until Rules are framed. The Permanent Secretariat continues.
Why it matters
The judgment ends the 100 point-based system of Indira Jaising-1 and Indira Jaising-2 and returns the designation decision to the Full Court under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, to be exercised under Rules framed by each High Court and this Court. No point was referred to a larger Bench: the Court treated the change as a course correction reserved by paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1, not a review. It also stresses diversity, including advocates practising in trial and district courts and tribunals.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Considering the object of the exercise undertaken by this Court, the directions issued in exercise of power under Article 142 were never intended to be final or understood as substitute to Statutory Rules under the Advocates Act. Paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1 and paragraph 51 of Indira Jaising-2 clearly contemplate that. This Court will have to make a course correction as expressed in paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1 again in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution.”
“We have realized that with experience. Therefore, paragraph 73.7 deserves deletion in exercise of powers reserved in paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1 read with paragraph 51 in Indira Jaising-2. When we do this, it will not amount to review or recall of the decisions. After finding that the point-based assessment is not workable, we will be failing in our duty if we fail to do what we are expected to do in the light of paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising-1.”
“It is not out of place to observe that subjecting an Advocate having standing at the Bar to interview by three senior-most Judges and two senior members of the Bar violates the dignity of the noble profession.”
“The designation as a Senior Advocate cannot remain the monopoly of the Advocates practicing in High Courts and this Court. If the designations are conferred only to the Advocates practicing in High Courts and this Court, Section 16(2) will be exposed to the vice of arbitrariness which is prohibited under Article 14 of the Constitution.”
Provisions interpreted
Case and bench
- Parties
- Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025 (with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 454 of 2015 and connected Interlocutory Applications)
- Decided
- 13 May 2025
- Bench
- Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, S.V.N. Bhatti
- Opinions
- Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by Abhay S. Oka, J.