|
Context
- On May 13, 2025, the Supreme Court revisited its earlier judgments (Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court of India, 2017 and 2023) in a case concerning the designation of senior advocates.
- The new judgment (Jitender @ Kalla vs State) re-examined how lawyers are selected for senior status, revealing deeper concerns about inequality within India’s legal system.
Key Issues Raised
1. Legal Profession’s Public Character & Systemic Inequality
- The legal profession plays a public, constitutional role in delivering justice.
- Designating “senior advocates” under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 leads to legal elitism, based on ambiguous criteria like “standing at the bar” or “special knowledge.”
- This institutionalizes privilege, weakening democratic access to justice and undermining Article 14 (Right to Equality).
2. Comparative Perspective – Lessons from the U.S.
- The Reuters 2014 “Echo Chamber” study found that:
- Only 66 out of 17,000 lawyers controlled 43% of U.S. Supreme Court cases.
- Though India hasn’t replicated this, the senior advocate system risks elite capture, allowing a few privileged lawyers to dominate high-profile cases.
3. Judicial Reform Attempts – Limited Impact
- 2017 Indira Jaising judgment introduced a point-based system for senior designation, but it remained subjective.
- In Jitender, the Court:
- Recognized the flaws in the earlier system.
- Criticized its own earlier guidelines as subjective, yet paradoxically endorsed the same classification.
- Core constitutional issues—whether this structure passes the test of equality—were sidestepped.
4. Constitutional Challenge Ignored
- The argument: Section 16 is arbitrary and violates Article 14.
- The designation does not improve justice delivery and merely rewards visibility and social capital.
- The Court failed to ask whether this classification serves any legitimate public or constitutional interest.
5. Consequences of Hierarchical Stratification
- “Intellectual apartheid” is created by privileging a few “star lawyers.”
- This limits judicial perspectives, especially on crucial constitutional matters.
- Example: In challenges like the Waqf (Amendment) Act, only elite voices are heard.
Conclusion
A truly democratic and egalitarian legal system must:
- Value competence over status.
- Encourage diversity in representation.
- Abandon hierarchies that marginalise capable, lesser-known lawyers.
India’s legal profession must evolve to reflect the Constitutional promise of justice—social, economic, and political—for all.
|
Latest News
EDITORIALS & ARTICLES
General Studies