Noting that the issue of designating lawyers as seniors was of "utmost importance", the bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha asked the secretary general of the apex court to place its order and case files before Chief Justice J S Khehar today itself for consideration and setting up a larger bench to deal with it.
The bench, meanwhile, considered the argument that there should not be a ban on designating lawyers as seniors by the apex court and the high courts across the country.
"So far as designating lawyers as seniors is concerned, we leave it to the discretion of the full court of the Supreme Court and the high courts," the bench said in its order.
Referring to a larger bench the batch of petitions, including the one filed by senior advocate Indira Jaising, the apex court said the instant issue has "ramifications" for all High Court Bar Associations and hence needed to be dealt with by a bigger bench.
She also sought a ban for the time being on designating lawyers as seniors till the apex court decides the case. The plea, however, was opposed by Bar leaders like Ajit Kumar Sinha and Gaurav Bhatia.
Jaising has sought transparency and overhaul of the "opaque system" of designating lawyers as senior advocates.
On January 2, the apex court had decided to hear afresh
the plea of Jaising on the issue.
The court had also tagged with it a petition pending in the Delhi High Court which challenged the provisions of the Advocates Act relating to designation of lawyers as seniors.
The court had noted in its order that after it had reserved the judgement, an application was filed seeking recall of its October 21 last year order on two grounds, including that when the matter was taken up for hearing on that date, the bench did not fully hear submissions on behalf of various lawyers.
The second ground was regarding the petition pending before the high court challenging the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Advocates Act.
Terming the present process as "opaque, arbitrary and fraught with nepotism", she had alleged the system was discriminatory and "if we want this (the practice of designating seniors) to continue, it has to be democratised".
Earlier, the apex court had said it was open to suggestions from the Bar to improve the system, but the final decision would remain with the judges.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
