Conferring designation of senior advocate on a practising lawyer is a decision taken by the administrative side of the court and cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny, the apex court registry has told the Supreme Court.
The top court's registry, in an affidavit filed on a PIL questioning the criteria and transparency measures adopted while conferring senior designation, said that the process was "objective and fair" and was based on various aspects, including the professional ability, expertise in law and standing at the bar.
"The decision of the Full Court of this court to confer or not to confer senior designation on any advocates is a decision taken on the administrative side of this court and, therefore, cannot be subject matter of judicial review," the affidavit, filed by a Registrar of the apex court, said.
Also Read
"It is submitted that objective consideration and fairness in considering candidates for conferment of senior designation by judges of the high court or by the judges of this Court is inbuilt in this entire scheme itself," it said.
Regarding the allegations levelled in the PIL, the affidavit said that averments made in the petition are based on "hearsay information and are in bad taste" as the court, after deliberation, puts the name of lawyers to be designated as senior advocates to a process of secret ballot which is one of the most fair and transparent methods which could have been adopted by the court.
"Any decision based on subjective element i.E. Subjective satisfaction of authority would not be a matter for judicial review where the exercise of power is based on subjective satisfaction and where the subjective satisfaction is based upon an objective and fair consideration of the relevant factors as are stated 16 (2) of the Act," it said.
The apex court registry further said that designation of a lawyer as a senior advocate is an acknowledgement of professional ability, standing at the bar or special knowledge or experience in law.
"It constitutes conferment of an honour on a deserving practising advocate based on assessment/evaluation of his/her professional ability/merit by the Chief Justice of India, his companion judges in this court and by Chief Justices of the high courts and his/her companion judges in the respective high courts," it said.
Referring to the decision of the Full Court to confer an
honour on a deserving advocate as senior advocate, the registry said that it is based upon exercise of the provision under the Supreme Court Rules 2013 which have been framed under the Constitution.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had said it was open for correcting the system for designating lawyers as senior advocates.
Former Additional Solicitor General Indira Jaising has challenged the procedure for designating advocates as senior in the Supreme Court.
Jaising's petition has sought judicial scrutiny of the court's method to designate lawyers as senior advocates, terming the process "opaque, arbitrary and fraught with nepotism".
She has said, "Lack of definite criteria and lack of transparency in giving the designation by the Supreme Court has resulted in arbitrariness, favouritism and nepotism.
"An elite handful of senior advocates is seen day in and day out at the bar while others, equally deserving and willing to serve the community, are excluded," she has said.
