Why in the News?
On May 13, 2025, the Supreme Court gave a key judgment revisiting earlier cases on senior lawyer designation. Though overlooked as an internal court issue, it raised concerns about inequality in the legal profession, elitism, and the fairness of classifying lawyers under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
What are the legal issues with the senior advocate designation?
- Arbitrary Classification under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961: Section 16 allows courts to classify lawyers into “senior advocates” and others based on vague terms like “ability” or “standing at the Bar”, which lack objective benchmarks. It has been challenged as violative of Article 14 (Right to Equality) of the Constitution because it creates unequal treatment among equals without a clear rationale.
- Lack of Objective Selection Process in Court Rules: The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 prescribe procedures for designation but allow subjective discretion, enabling possible favouritism or bias. Eg: Rule 2 of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules allows for pre-audience to senior advocates, reinforcing hierarchical privilege without transparency in how they are chosen.
- Undermines Egalitarian Access to Justice: Designation often leads to a concentration of influence among a few, marginalising others and affecting diversity in courtroom representation. Eg: In Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017), the Court upheld the validity of Section 16 but did not address how it leads to systemic exclusion, especially of women and underprivileged lawyers, conflicting with constitutional ideals of equality and non-discrimination.
Why is the 2025 Jitender judgment seen as inadequate?
- Did Not Address Constitutional Validity of Section 16: The 2025 judgment failed to examine the constitutional validity of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which creates a classification between senior advocates and other advocates. The Court did not refer the matter to a larger Bench for a deeper constitutional review. The classification was upheld without addressing whether it was arbitrary or led to inequality in the legal profession.
- Acknowledged Subjectivity but Retained Flawed Process: The Court admitted that the point-based assessment system used to designate senior advocates is “highly subjective”, yet it retained the application-based process. This allows judges’ discretion to continue dominating the selection process, opening space for favoritism and elite networks. Eg: Many competent lawyers are left out simply because they lack access to the corridors of power.
- Missed Opportunity to Promote Inclusiveness and Reform: Instead of proposing systemic change, the Court left it to High Courts to frame rules, without tackling the core issue of representation. The process continues to exclude women, Dalits, and those from less privileged backgrounds, reinforcing elitism in the judiciary. Eg: The designation process continues to favour a “creamy layer” of elite lawyers, limiting judicial diversity.
What are the factors fueling inequality in the legal profession?
- Unequal Access to Quality Legal Education: Aspiring lawyers from rural or low-income backgrounds often lack access to top law schools due to language barriers, lack of coaching, or high costs. Eg: Students from remote areas rarely make it to National Law Universities, which limits their exposure and opportunities.
- Urban Concentration of Legal Opportunities: Legal practice in metropolitan cities attracts more recognition, clients, and judicial exposure compared to small-town lawyers. Eg: Talented advocates in lower courts of Bihar or Odisha are often overlooked for high-profile cases or designations.
- Subjectivity in Senior Advocate Designation: The selection process often favours those with elite networks or familiarity with judges, sidelining equally competent but lesser-known lawyers. Eg: Women and Dalit lawyers remain significantly underrepresented among senior advocates.
Way forward:
- Transparent and Inclusive Designation Process: Develop a merit-based, transparent system for designating senior advocates with clear evaluation criteria. Include diverse representation (e.g., women, marginalized groups) in selection committees to promote judicial inclusiveness.
- Strengthening Legal Education and Access: Expand access to quality legal education through scholarships, regional law schools, and skill-based training in vernacular languages, especially for students from rural and underprivileged backgrounds to reduce structural entry barriers.
Mains PYQ:
[UPSC 2014] Starting from inventing the ‘basic structure’ doctrine, the judiciary has played a highly proactive role in ensuring that India develops into a thriving democracy. In light of the statement, evaluate the role played by judicial activism in achieving the ideals of democracy.
Linkage: This question prompts an evaluation of the judiciary’s role in achieving “ideals of democracy”. The article talks about the direct counter-narrative to this positive assertion by arguing that the classification of senior advocates, as upheld by Supreme Court judgments in Indira Jaising and Jitender, creates a “legal oligarchy” and perpetuates inequality that can damage the justice delivery system enormously.
