The Central Government has sought modification in the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in 2017 judgement of Indira Jaising Vs. Supreme Court of India Through Secretary General and Ors. [January 2, 2017] laying down process of conferring Senior designation on Advocates.
The Government has filed a modification application contending that new guidelines have resulted in 'dilution' of the esteem, elegance and dignity of the process conferring the Senior Desigantion as it submitted that interviews, publications are not 'effective parameters'.
It has sought reverting to the old system of performance-based evaluation by Full Courts followed by a secret ballot vote. It has moved the application in terms of Paragraph 74 of the judgment wherein it had made provision for revisiting the extant guidelines for designation.
It has been stated in the application that the title of ‘Senior Advocate’, ‘Senior Counsel’, ‘King’s Counsel’ traditionally conferred upon distinguished lawyers practicing in current or former Commonwealth jurisdictions are bestowed based on exceptional competence, contribution to development of law, advocacy skills etc. To this, it was agued that the 2017 guidelines makes it comparatively easier for anyone to fulfill the point-based criteria and become eligible to be a Senior Advocate, thus diluting the ‘honour’ of the position.
It has been vehemently argued that assigning 40% weightage to parameters like ‘publications’ and ‘interviews’ reduces advocacy to a mere job as these criterias are highly subjective and may not be an effective parameter to evaluate a candidate.
In related news, the Supreme Court has hinted that it is inclined to commence hearing in petition seeking reforms in the process of designation of Senior Advocate next week from Wednesday.
The petition filed by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, has been directed to be listed as the first item on the Wednesday Board. Ms. Jaising, during the hearing stated before the Court that it should hear the matter at the earliest as any further deferment of the hearing would only delay the process of designation of senior advocates.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our
journalism free from government and corporate pressure .
0 Comments