Senior advocate Indira Jaising has filed a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court today to challenge the “non transparent and arbitrary method of designating senior counsel by the Supreme Court”.
The process, she submitted, had resulted in too few minorities, an abundance of senior counsel from the same caste, ignoring lawyers who specialised in PILs, and generally too low a quantity of seniors, buttressing the existing seniors’ “monopoly”.
Jaising commented in a press release that the process was not objective: “The method of voting pointing out designation as senior advocate is not something akin to a beauty contest or an election but must be based on an objective evaluation of forensic and academic skills, and hence the method of designation by vote leads to unhealthy lobbying with judges and victimises ethical lawyers who do not lobby. It also ignored past practice whereby a lawyers with at lest five recommendations from Judges are ordinarily designated.
“The lack of transparency has had undesirable outcomes leading to a monopoly of a few senior counsel at the bar and has made legal services by senior lawyers unaffordable and out of reach of ordinary litigant. It has also led to the denial of those who come form different disciplines of law with expert knowledge in specific branches of law.
“The Petition also argues that renowned academics with several books to their credit, including some who have themselves taught sitting judges, are not designated and should be designated as Senior Counsel.”
Jaising said that her Right to Information (RTI) request asking for the CVs of those designated in May 2015 was rejected. She said that this would show “that there is no rational criteria for granting or not granting designation”, and that she has filed an appeal.
The petition states that Jaising has no personal interest in the senior designation process since she was the first woman to have been appointed a senior by the Bombay high court, the first female additional solicitor general of India, and the first and only woman to be elected to the Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination of Women of the United Nations to represent India.
She noted in her petition that the process has been effectively discriminatory:
The petitioner submits that the system of two classes Advocates stands on a premise of “excellence in Advocacy”.
However, in practice, the system in the Supreme Court has indeed offended the rule of equality under Art 14 and notions of diversity guaranteed under Art 15 of the Constitution.
It is pertinent to mention that the operation of the existing system of designation has particularly resulted in severe discrimination against persons from minority communities, differently abled and women.
In the last 15 years i.e., from 2000 onwards only, one Dalit has been designated by the Supreme Court., and only two from the Muslim Community.
The Advocates from backward States like Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand or Bihar have not been designated at all. The Advocates from rural background are totally ignored. Even with regard to a progressive State like Karnataka, only one Advocate has been designated after a gap of 25 years. It is relevant to mention that in the last round of designation, out of five advocates designated, four of them belonged to one caste.
With regard to Advocates who conduct PIL cases and Advocates who have confined their practices in the area of their Domain Expertise, the Petitioner submits that there appears to be a unwritten bias against them. In the last three decades, the Supreme Court has not designated any Advocate coming from either of this class. The general impression at the Bar is that the PIL lawyers who espouse the issues concerning Human Rights and Environmental issues are denied designation for their anti establishment attitude.
The Petitioner submits that the denial of designation to Advocates who were considered by the Full Court on 11.02.2014 or 23.04.2015 is contrary to the unwritten practice and procedure should be reviewed and appropriate advocates designated in accordance with an objective method of designation.
The Petitioner submits that, the present procedure adopted by the Supreme Court is arbitrary and wholly non transparent and not in the public interest. No norms or guidelines are spelt out. No time table is fixed. It is also not told to applicants whether his application has recommendation of five Judges or not. It is also not told whether application has been deferred or rejected. Everything is left to gossip in the corridors of the Bar.
The Petitioner further submits that the present of the Supreme Court is large with 2500 Advocates. Annually about 100 Advocates are admitted as Advocates on Record. However, the number of practicing Senior Advocates is less than 100. In the last 15 years, only 30 Advocates are designated, whereas Delhi High Court has designated about 115 Advocates.
Hence, it would be just and proper to designate an adequate number each year.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
A lot of advocates do send out press releases actually...
NJAC hearing: Tell us when we pushed wrong name, Supreme Court to government.
Read here the wrong name ... AND how Judges work as a GANG
ikchhugani.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/njac-hearing-tell-us-when-we-pushed-wrong-name-supreme-court-to-government/
Surely everyone agrees that the senior designation process is deeply opaque and ridiculous at times, especially in many high courts.
It's certainly also not representative - only 6 women have been made seniors in the Delhi HC and Bombay HC in 20 years or so. That's 3% or something.
www.legallyindia.com/201103081892/Analysis/exclusive-only-6-women-became-senior-counsel-in-two-decades-but-odds-slim-for-all
I'm sure that other minorities are similarly under-represented.
I don't think anyone suggested reservations, but a more transparent process can only be a good thing, rather than the cloak and daggers lobbying that's currently required.
Here's something worth reading about the Delhi HC process from those designated in 2011:
www.legallyindia.com/201102111794/Bar-Bench-Litigation/ten-new-senior-counsel-at-delhi-high-court-but-process-lacks-objectivity
You're saying she should have raised it back then or shut up about it?
Why would she not have made senior but for cloak and dagger?
Don't think anyone is arguing for reservation. But the lack of minorities and women does suggest that the process is nepotistic and reinforces existing biases at the bar...
Please leave communalism out of it just because the words Muslim or Dalit were used in the story or petition. From my reading, this is not about communalism but about perceived nepotism and a lack of transparency.
Whether the minorities mentioned by way of example are Muslims, Dalit, or women, has very little to do with politics, I'd think, though for some reason those words act like a red flag automatically to a certain section of the population.
In the US, if you were to say, very few black people or women are partners in law firms, that's a fact and doesn't have to be republican or democrat or partisan in any way but is just evidence of an imbalance in the system.
On top of that, if you go to a company and look at promotions to senior management over 10 years and conclude that despite 20% of your workforce being X, only 1% of promotions are X, that's enough in the UK to sue the employer for discrimination if you are X and got fired without sufficient reason. Not sure what employment law in India is.
In senior selections it's at least prima facie evidence that the same narrow set of people keep propagating their biases and dominance of the system, even if only subconsciously, as evidenced in the actual designations that took place.
In terms of Jaising's timing, I assume professionally, as ASG, it wouldn't have been proper to file earlier but I don't think it's fair to draw other more political conclusions.
But really, why so unhappy? If you agree the process is currently flawed, then be happy someone has filed a PIL about it, don't shoot it down because you don't like the messenger or the fact she's pointed out that minorities have got screwed by the system...
I am unhappy with these entitled ppl trying to act as champions of the downtrodden when all that they want to do is further their own selfish agendas - what stopped her from putting in place all these measures when she was the ASG - sab dikhawa hai
That said, the rest of your post is borderline drivel and I'm not sure if I should even bother with a response since you seem incapable of logical argument and are clearly prone to jumping to irrational conclusions.
1. Your argument essentially consists of the straw man logical fallacy / ad hominem. For all your attacks on Jaising, yadiyaaa, deal with the facts: is there only 1 Dalit or 2 Muslims among recent SC seniors (or 6 women amongst 200 Delhi and Mumbai HC seniors)? Is the process opaque? Is it nepotistic?
If you don't have a rebuttal to those arguments, then no one should care one jot whether you think Jaising is a Congy stooge or the devil incarnate.
2. You should try Googling - seems like 1.9% of partners at Big Law firms in the US are African American: www.abajournal.com/mobile/article/only_3_percent_of_lawyers_in_biglaw_are_black_which_firms_were_most_diverse
What was your point?
Anyway, now I am truly done with this discussion unless you have something intelligent to add other than trying to troll this thread up further with pointless politics, or I will assume you are not a lawyer but a semi-professional troll whose job it is to shill for politicial parties.
2. dont get so agitated - ur supposed to be the moderator - if you are so averse to any kind of counter view - you shouldnt engage in an "argument" - again ur words not mine - and please dont get personal - there is absolutely no need to do that;
3. the little bit of trivia that you quoted in your post about foreign law firm partners actually establishes my point that there is an intellectual elite, which corners such positions and till we have a a more egalitarian education system, will continue to be so;
4. I didnt call Indira Jaising the devil incarnate(again your words - more importantly whats wrong with ad hominem - clean hands and all that) - I was just stating well recorded facts (I can provide a lot of links but I do not feel googling and coming up with links is a manifestation of superlative knowledge);
5. My being a lawyer has got nothing to do with this post - is my opinion of lesser value if I am not 1 - just as I am not a lesser lawyer if I worship the rain gods for that matter or I was born a hermaphrodite;and
6. Finally "Semi-professional troll" - I like that term - but you know who it best applies to - I am at least doing it on 1 article - somethings are best left unsaid.
By analogy, in India, you would argue that more Muslims and Dalits have not become senior counsel because they have not received a good enough education and are not meritorious, unlike all the Hindu high-caste senior counsel who are all very capable and highly educated?
At the same time, pretty much everyone (as you seem to) accepts that the senior counsel system is not necessarily based on merit and opaque.
Yes, I am agitated, because you exemplify what is wrong with public discourse nowadays, whether it's on Fox News or on Twitter or in comments sections of websites containing half-baked argument. And you should know, it's impossible to 'get personal' with someone who's hiding behind anonymity.
Your opinion is not of lesser value because you are not a lawyer but because your arguments are weak and obviously made for the sole purpose of some unsubstantiated political point scoring. LI's comment section is not the place for that, but TOI will accommodate.
Ok bye.
Similarly the AOR system should be junked too.
The senior designations create another closed cabal in our courts. To appreciate just how cozy this club (which excludes the ordinary lawyer) is see this post on LI www.legallyindia.com/Bar-Bench-Litigation/adish-agarwala-dares-dushyant-to-strike
which talks about how senior advocates can easily phone and talk to CJIs and about how senior counsel enjoy the "warmth and affection" of SC judges.
The senior counsel system also propagates a nepotistic system where a small group of lawyers monopolize the most lucrative litigation and earn astronomical fees and their success is not always based upon how meritorious their lawyer skills are.
As far as Indira Jaising's locus goes, it is interesting that she has filed the petition in her own name. She has certainly been a beneficiary of a system where factors other than merit play a role in a lawyers professional advancement. (Maybe her association with the Bhopal gas case helped her designation in 1986?)
But still even this petition filed by her should shake things up for the better.
Also this is a very low figure, & would have protected established senior advocates from serious competition.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first