The Supreme Court's administrative side told a special bench on Wednesday that the 2017 Indira Jaising judgment governing the designation of lawyers as Senior Advocates needs to be reconsidered..Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the Supreme Court and made arguments before the 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 Court had earlier sought responses from the Supreme Court's administrative side as well as all High Courts on 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 in the case of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court.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 had submitted their suggestions earlier on the issue..When the case was taken up today, SG Mehta said that he is appearing for the Supreme Court and the apex court's 2017 judgment needs to be re-examined."I have been requested by the Supreme Court to appear for the Supreme Court," he said.He then proceeded to make the following suggestions:- Indira Jaising 1 and 2 judgments need a relook. The experiment which this Court conducted needs a relook;- Only the court in which an advocate is practicing should designate that advocate;- Any system where individual judges recommend a certain lawyer to be designated should be stopped;- The system of individual members deciding basis of marks etc like a collegium should be disbanded. The Supreme Court as a whole should decide on conferring the gown..Mehta further said that the major factor to be considered for designation is the lawyer's performance in court. He also called for secret ballot voting so as to avoid manipulation and lobbying."Personality cannot be a basis for designation. It is a subjective quality. What has to be seen is how does he perform in court. We are all humans and judges are also humans and human tendency is not to displease another person without genuine reason. Transparent marking is only when there is secret ballot. Nowadays, my experience is that during a full court meeting, so and so receive messages that 'this or that judge has objected to your name'. The system should be simple and incapable of manipulation," the SG said."Lobbying also needs to stop," Jaising weighed in. "Yes, persuasive manipulation also has to stop," SG Mehta agreed..The bench pointed out that every High Court has rule-making powers and asked whether the same can be denuded by the Supreme Court by issuing directions under Article 142 of the Constitution.The discussion then veered towards the issue of applying for the senior gown rather than the court conferring the same voluntarily."My suggestion is there can be a secretariat...anyone who wants to become a senior can apply," SG Mehta said."There were four eminent lawyers who never applied for senior designation and were assisted by senior counsel," Justice Oka remarked."Yes, in Gujarat, Advocate SB Vakeel also did not apply and was assisted by Senior Advocates. It is because many would not like to be interviewed," Mehta weighed in..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."Interview stays but marks can be lessened, the articles etc stays. It is all which has been upheld," he said.Interestingly, Nair also took objection to the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court today in a separate matter restricting the marking of appearance of lawyers in order sheets to only those lawyers who have argued the matter and not those who have assisted or done research for the case..Jaising batted for doing away with the distinction between Senior Advocates and other advocates. She specifically objected to the special gown that Senior Advocates wear."See, I am not wearing my gown. This does not mean my arguments will be any less. Not on the lighter side. Please take me seriously. It is time to do away with the gown. Also there should be no distinction between senior and non-senior gowns. The Bar Council also has no such prescriptions," she submitted.She also said that the Court was hearing the present case as if were a review of the Indira Jaising judgment, though nobody has officially filed any review petition."I will proceed as if this is a review...but as on today, no one has sought a review of the Indira Jaising judgment. The grounds of review have to be articulated. The procedure needs to be followed," she said..Attorney General (AG) R Venkataramani said that Senior designation cannot be conferred for the asking, but should be as per some well-settled principles.Justice Oka then alluded to the difficulties a judge faces when evaluating lawyers for senior gown, particularly the time taken for the task."Can advocates or members of the Bar be made part of the committee which selects seniors? Can full court have lawyers? Can there be a machinery where two lawyers are part of the machinery which evaluates the lawyers? I was part of committee interviewing candidates in Karnataka. Interviewed five of them each day and then read articles judgments etc for three hours each day. So is the Chief Justice supposed to do all of this? Are we publishing them on the website? No," he stated.As the hearing drew to a close, Jaising asked whether the matter will be heard as a review petition or the Court will continue hearing it under the Jitender @Kalla matter."Someone has to file an application for review. Just tell me if the procedure will be followed or not. Review petition by an interim application?" Jaising demanded."Please continue tomorrow," the Bench said.Jaising then requested for copies of written submissions by the SG and the AG."There is no rule that lawyers are bound to give written submissions," the bench replied."This is so unfair for me. SG switches from appearing for Supreme Court and his personal opinion...I am being compelled to argue," Jaising protested."Compel? We are requesting. Hearing was slotted for two days," the bench responded."I am needed in High Court (tomorrow). If it can happen day after," Jaising requested."Sorry, tomorrow 2 pm," Justice Oka said, refusing to budge..[Read Live Coverage]
