Today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted before the Supreme Court that the process of granting senior designation to advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, warrants a reconsideration.

A division bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a matter in which it was observed various instances of false statements made in several remission pleas by Senior Advocate Rishi Malhotra.

Citing the Supreme Court's 2017 judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India and its subsequent refinement in 2023, he observed that the 2017 ruling may need to be revisited.

Mehta further noted that the Union of India had made previous attempts at reform, but these efforts had not been successful, as indicated by the 2023 judgment.

“Maybe without any individual case being named, but the system of designation also need a little relook. I attempted, my lordships, the Union of India attempted, but it could not fructify. And for this reason, we'll just place it and we'll leave it to the wisdom of your Lordships and the learned amicus”, Mehta said.

"Learned Solicitor General of India made submission that without going into the cases of individuals, wider issue needs to be considered about the procedure followed for designation of advocates as senior advocates in accordance with the section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961. We will consider the said issue on the next date."

Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, classifies advocates into two categories: Senior Advocates and other advocates. Senior Advocates are designated based on their legal ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge and experience in law. This designation is meant to acknowledge advocates of exceptional merit and is governed by specific guidelines established by the Supreme Court and High Courts.

Mehta referred to the Supreme Court's 2017 judgment in *Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India*, which introduced a structured framework for designating Senior advocates. The 2017 ruling replaced the previous secret ballot system with an objective, point-based assessment and established a Permanent Committee to oversee the designation process.

Mehta referred to the Supreme Court's 2023 judgment, which refined the 2017 guidelines by emphasizing merit-based evaluation, promoting gender diversity, and revising criteria such as publication points, judgment contributions, and interviews.

We are only on the aspect of fine- tuning what has been laid down by this Court in the 2017 Judgment. It is also pertinent that the then Attorney General was present throughout the oral hearings that culminated in the 2017 Judgment. There is also the question of what the role of the Union can even be at this stage, particularly as the Bar Council of India, which is the representative body of the lawyers is being represented before."