Revisiting Senior Designation, Supreme Court Found a Better Way

HAS THE SUPREME COURT FOUND A BETTER WAY WHILE REVISITING SENIOR DESIGNATION: 

     Adv. C.V. Manuvilsan,
     LEX LOCI associates 

 

On May 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of India quietly dismantled the structured, point-based system for designating Senior Advocates. In doing so, it over turned the framework established by the landmark Indira Jaising judgments of 2017 and 2023, bringing a decades-long debate to a pivotal turning point.

But does this new system truly offer a better way forward?

Or have we merely exchanged numbers for discretion?

From Numbers to Nuance: The End of the Point-Based System

The scrapped system awarded scores out of 100—based on years of practice, reported judgments, publications, and interviews. While it promised objectivity, critics argued that it reduced advocacy to arithmetic, overlooking key traits like integrity, courtroom character, and social contribution.

The new system, crafted by Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan, and S.V.N. Bhatti, removes the point scale entirely. Instead, designations will now be made by the Full Court—meaning all judges of the High Court or Supreme Court will collectively assess eligible candidates.

Key takeaways:

No individual recommendations from judges.

At least one designation exercise is mandatory every calendar year.

Decisions may be made by consensus or democratic voting.

Why This Course Correction?

This shift didn’t come from impulse—it came from institutional fatigue and deeper concerns:

Trial Court Exclusion: The old system marginalized trial lawyers whose judgments rarely get reported.

Opaque Interviews: Brief interviews were seen as reductive and potentially discriminatory.

Unmanageable Evaluation: Even the Attorney General acknowledged the evaluation workload was unsustainable.

Blurring Roles: The inclusion of Attorney/Advocate Generals in scoring raised concerns about the separation of powers.

Is This a Fairer System?

The new approach aspires to be more inclusive, accountable, and representative. Its intent is clear:

✅ Promote diversity—across caste, gender, region, and trial court experience.

✅ Curb lobbying and informal influence.

✅ Enhance judicial accountability through Full Court decisions.

Yet, some critical questions remain unanswered:

❓ Should Full Court deliberations be live-streamed for transparency?

❓ Will trial court practitioners truly find space in this new model?

❓ Can High Courts practically implement these changes within the Court’s four-month window?

What Happens Next?

High Courts now have four months to amend their designation rules in line with the Supreme Court’s new framework.

Until then:

No new applications will be processed.

Pending processes under the old system may continue.

The legal community now finds itself at a crossroads of tradition and reform.

With no more marksheets and structured interviews, the field is open—

but will merit shine brighter, or will opacity deepen under a new veil of discretion?

The Bigger Question

As we step beyond the confines of numerical evaluation, the real question is:

Can institutional wisdom succeed where metrics failed—by truly recognising excellence in advocacy?

Let’s not lose sight of that answer.

What’s your take?

Join the conversation. Share your views in the comments.

#LexLociUpdates #SeniorAdvocateDesignation #SupremeCourtJudgment #JudicialReform #LegalProfessionIndia #CourtroomExcellence #RuleOfLaw #BarAndBench #LegalReform #ConstitutionalEthics