Indira Jaising calls for diversity in senior designations; Supreme Court reserves verdict

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising told the Supreme Court on Thursday that she was not in favour of having an interview for designating lawyers as Senior Advocates..Jaising said that though she never made such a suggestion to the Court in 2017, the Supreme Court in its judgment mandated interview as a criterion for conferring the gown and also assigned 25 marks for the same.She was referring to the top court's 2017 judgment in the case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court based on which present procedure of conferring senior designations was put in place by the Supreme Court and various High Courts."I had not suggested an interview at all. Then when the judgement was delivered I heard the learned judge reading it out and say 25 marks for interview. I never suggested 25 marks. It is quite large! I leave it to the court to decide what to do with 25 marks. If the person is not well in other areas, then he can be put up in the 25 marks area," Jaising stated on Thursday.She also batted for diversity in Senior Advocate designations while also calling for ending discrimination against non-senior lawyers.However, she defended the criterion to give weightage to publications and authorship of articles.The 2017 judgment of the apex court had mandated this based on the suggestion made by Jaising."When you are designating a senior, you are looking at their contribution to public life and not just public service that is why I was keen that journal and articles are important since the person should have an intellectual bent of mind," she said..She also said that designation of Senior Advocate is not an election and hence, whether a secret ballot should be employed or not is something which the full court should consider. The same should not be ordered by a judicial decision, she added."The process is not an election ..effort is to develop a consensus through discussion. If no consensus, then the process (exists) how to decide. Whether you want secret ballot or not is something should be left to full court and not a judicial decision. The judgment should not state that it will always be secret ballot. It should be left to full court in a given case," Jaising contended.Jaising was arguing before a special bench of Justices AS Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan and SVN Bhatti, which is hearing the issue of reconsidering the process for designation of Senior Advocates.The top court after hearing Jaising and other parties reserved its verdict in the matter..The present procedure of conferring senior designations was put in place by the Supreme Court and various High Courts pursuant to the top court's 2017 judgment.That verdict was rendered on a plea filed by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising seeking greater transparency and objectivity in senior designations.There have been calls for changes and tweaks to the judgment, which the top court is now considering in a separate case of Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi. At least four High Courts submitted their suggestions earlier on the issue after the apex court sought responses from them on the matter..During the hearing of the matter on Wednesday, the Supreme Court's administrative side told the Bench that the 2017 judgment should be re-examined.The submission was made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) opposed the Supreme Court's suggestion to re-examine the judgment.SCAORA President Vipin Nair told the Court that judgments needs fine tuning with respect to certain aspects, but not a complete overhaul..There has to be diversity in senior designations.Indira Jaising.During the hearing today, advocate Mathews Nedumpara said that it is the litigants who are most affected by the practice of senior designation system."A common man is denied justice due to the senior designation system. Court has opened a pandoras box. I have seen agony of litigant. Lawyers should prosper. In this discussion litigants are (being) avoided," he said.He also said that the matter also involves issue of self-respect."This is about self respect and I am 67 ... This is a pain and agony shared by many and not just me. I will never apply for this. Never," he said..Every country has country specific issues. Instead of going in to the systems prevailing in other countries, time has come to re-Indianise the Indian jurisprudenceSG Tushar Mehta .Jaising, appearing in person, reiterated her stance that there should be no distinction between senior and non-senior lawyers."This is a case dealing with classification of designated and non-designated seniors. I was on equality before law and equal protection of law. I argued that there is no guided power then the section should be declared unconstitutional," she said.She also batted for diversity in designations."There are some lawyers of this court like Mr Salve and Nakul Dewan who applied in foreign court for foreign designation and went through a much more rigorous process and got the senior designation process," she said. "We need to re-Indianise Indian jurisprudence and not go by what happens in foreign jurisdictions," SG Mehta said. "There has to be diversity at the level of senior designations," Jaising maintained as the hearing drew to a close..[Read Live Coverage]