SG Tushar Mehta, Indira Jaising concur that lobbying still happens for Senior designations

The revised system of designating lawyers as Senior Advocates, which was introduced by the Supreme Court in 2017, has done little to curb unsavoury lobbying practices, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said on Friday .The concern was raised before a Bench of Justices AS Oka and Augustine George Masih of the apex court. While SG Mehta and Jaising have been at loggerheads in the recent past over the Senior designation system, they found a common ground to agree as regards the practice of lobbying.Jaising recounted that she had filed a petition before the top court that led to the 2017 judgment which eventually led to the revamp of the method by which lawyers are conferred senior gown.However, despite the new method, lobbying by lawyers continues even now, she said. "I don't understand why, either in 2017, 2023, or even now, the Supreme Court Bar Association has not come up with their suggestions on this. The High Court should give feedback on the problems they have experienced. A lot of lobbying is taking place even under this system. This petition (which led to 2017 ruling) was filed to end the system of lobbying," Jaising said. Solicitor General (SG) Mehta agreed."Only she could have said this, but it is a fact. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact. And it is really embarrassing. Your Lordships will have to stop this," he said..A lot of lobbying is taking place even under this system.Senior Advocate Indira Jaising.The issue was taken note of during the hearing of a a case where the a senior lawyer, Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra, was accused by an Advocate on Record (AoR) of orchestrating the suppression of facts in a remission plea. These allegations led the Bench of to take up larger issues, including designation of Senior Advocates and the need to ensure that AoR do not blindly sign off on pleadings like a "post office." Senior Advocate Dr. S Muralidhar was also appointed as an amicus curiae to assist the Court and suggest reforms, after consulting with stakeholders. Today, the Court raised concerns over the lack of any provisions in the new point-based system to deduct marks if doubts arise about a candidate’s integrity and character..The hearing today also threw up questions about whether the requirement for an interview and the marks allotted for it in the revised system needs to be revisited. SG Tushar Mehta reiterated his stance that the system of interviewing candidates should be done away with as it erodes the dignity of senior lawyers. The Court acknowledged the concern. Addressing Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, Justice Oka remarked,"Let's take your example. When you were designated this system was not there. Now will it be fair to say that the person of your standing, you have done so much of pro bona work, you should be subjected to interview? Is it consistent with the dignity of your standing that five gentlemen they ask questions? 25 marks are assigned for this interaction, say for 5 minutes, 10 minutes ...There are no guidelines on how interaction is conducted.""It is a test of personality," SG Mehta added. .It is a test of personality. In 5 minutes or 15 minutes, what can (a candidate) convince? Interview needs to be done away with.SG Tushar Mehta .Jaising replied that the interview process may need to be done away with, but not for the reasons cited by the SG. "My reasons are different from yours (referring to SG Mehta). It's not about dignity, but rather having such a high weightage on an interview leaves scope for manipulation. I am sorry to be blunt," Jaising said. She also suggested that no sitting judge should recommend any lawyer as a senior advocate, since some lawyers have access to judges."I'm flagging an issue that no judge, no sitting judge should give a recommendation to anybody. In the system earlier, there was unlimited lobbying. There are some people who have access to judges. I am one of those people who believe that there should be no access to judges in the matter of designation at all," she said..No sitting judge should give a recommendation (for senior designation)Senior Advocate Indira Jaising.The Court eventually noted that the aim is to ensure that all lawyers get a fair opportunity for being considered for the senior gown, while also ensuring that undeserving people are not designated Senior Advocates.Jaising replied that the focus should be on this aspect of equality of opportunity, not dignity."If you begin at the dignity end and then you are saying that it's an honor, it is not an honor. You are being designated for your competence. So please find a way of judging competence," she said.She further pointed out that the focus should also shift to the welfare of the client."The client is the ultimate beneficiary of your efforts and my efforts and they deserve the best. Let's not talk about our (lawyers') dignity, let's talk about the dignity of the person for whom we are working. They deserve the best. They deserve competent people," she said.She added that diversity is another factor that must be borne in mind when it comes to senior designations."Suppose there is a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe lawyer designated, or somebody else from a minority community. The client may have a comfort level communicating with them. Nothing to do with personal benefit—ultimately, the beneficiary is the litigant," she explained..Amicus Muralidhar, meanwhile, suggested that the Supreme Court rules could be amended to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of lawyers in case filings, thereby ensuring accuracy in pleadings.He also informed the Court that several stakeholders agree that the interview part of the revised senior designation system should be done away with, as it was not really serving its intended purpose."It is not possible for Your Lordships to garner any meaningful assessment on personality or other traits just with that few minutes of interaction ... I am getting the feedback that the secret ballot system must be introduced, not as an exception, but as the rule," he informed..I am getting the feedback that the secret ballot system must be introduced, not as an exception, but as the rule.Amicus Curiae S Muralidhar.Mehta added that he broadly agreed with these concerns, but added an additional concern regarding the interview process. "If Your Lordships do not know me (a candidate), then within 5 minutes or 15 minutes, what can I convince the court? The very fact that five of the people representative of the bar, Attorney General, and the three honorable judges have to interview the person by itself means that he doesn't deserve to be designated. Therefore, the interview needs to be done away with. And with a view to ensure that the views of each judge are counted and each judge is able to make his decision, secret ballot must be a must," Mehta said. Having heard the matter at length, the Court eventually reserved the matter for orders. .[Read Live Coverage]