The petitioner, an advocate, sought the designation of "Senior Advocate" under the Advocates Act, 1961, arguing eligibility due to ten years of practice and alleged gender equality under Article 51A of the Constitution. The Court dismissed the petition, clarifying that only a High Court’s Full Court can confer the "Senior Advocate" designation, following the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Jaisingh v. Supreme Court of India (2017) and affirmed in Indira Jaising (2023). As the petitioner did not follow the required procedure, relief could not be granted.

1. Procedural Context and Rule Involvement

• Para 1-2: The petitioner is a lawyer registered with the Bar Council of Chhattisgarh. The Bar Council issued the petitioner’s “Sanad” after 2009-2010, necessitating verification under Rule 8.1, Chapter IV of the Bar Council of India’s 2015 Notification.

2. Reliefs Claimed by Petitioner

• Para 3: Petitioner sought designation as “Senior Advocate” based on her years of practice, invoking Article 51A of the Constitution and asserting that gender equality principles entitle her to such a status.
• Relief (a): Direct Respondent No.1 to confer Sanad and enrollment number.
• Relief (b): Direct Respondents to accept specific form submissions under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, based on her legal experience and knowledge.

3. Response of the Respondents and Legal Precedents

• Para 4-5: Respondents argued that granting the requested designation is beyond the Court’s purview, citing precedents, particularly T. N. Raghupathy & Ors. v. High Court of Karnataka and the Indira Jaising guidelines, which mandate that Senior Advocate designation decisions rest solely with High Court Full Courts.

4. Guidelines Governing Senior Advocate Designation

• Para 6-7: The Court discussed the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017), laying out a comprehensive framework, including the Permanent Committee’s role, Secretariat responsibilities, and point-based assessments for applicants.
• Summarized Guidelines (Indira Jaising, 2017, para 73-74):
  • The Permanent Committee manages initial data collection, reviews candidate qualifications, and conducts interviews, forwarding recommendations to the Full Court, which makes the final decision.
  • Emphasized that only a Full Court can grant Senior Advocate status, following specified protocols, making clear that the designation involves an assessment of legal skill, conduct, and experience.

5. Ratio Decidendi and Procedural Compliance

• Para 8: Following Indira Jaising (2017 and 2023) and T. N. Raghupathy (2020), the Court ruled that the Full Court exclusively holds the power to confer the Senior Advocate designation. The petitioner, having bypassed the required process, was thus not entitled to relief.

6. Final Decision

• Para 9: The Court dismissed the petition due to procedural non-compliance and maintained that without completing the designated procedure, no relief could be granted.

Key Legal Provisions and Sections Discussed

1. Advocates Act, 1961

   • Section 16: Designation of Senior Advocates by High Court based on an advocate’s ability, legal knowledge, and experience.

2. Bar Council of India Rules

   • Rule 8.1, Chapter IV (Notification dated 12/01/2015): Verification of advocates’ Sanads issued post-2009-2010, ensuring compliance with All India Bar Examination Rules, 2010.

3. Supreme Court of India Guidelines (Indira Jaising, 2017)

   • Provides structured norms for the Senior Advocate designation process, including Permanent Committee procedures, Full Court’s authority, and safeguards against arbitrary decision-making.

Subjects

• Senior Advocate Designation
• Full Court Authority
• Advocates Act, Section 16
• Gender Equality in Legal Profession
• Supreme Court Guidelines (Indira Jaising)
• Procedural Compliance in Designation