New Delhi: The Supreme Court said on Thursday it will consider whether its 2017 verdict laying down the guidelines for itself and high courts to govern the exercise of designating lawyers as senior advocates needs to be revisited.
“The scope really is whether the judgement needs some modifications or not,” a bench headed by Justice S K Kaul said while hearing a batch of pleas raising issues about designating lawyers as senior advocates.
“Let us confine it to whether that judgement needs revisit and if yes, to what extent,” said the bench, which also comprised Justices Manoj Misra and Aravind Kumar.
The apex court was told that the October 2017 verdict had noted that guidelines enumerated in it “may not be exhaustive of the matter and may require reconsideration by suitable additions/deletions in the light of the experience to be gained over a period of time”.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the bench that the government will be filing an application during the day in the matter.
Referring to one of the paragraphs of the verdict which had said the guidelines may not be exhaustive and may require reconsideration in light of the experiences gained, Mehta said, “We have the experiences based upon which we are moving an application”.
Senior advocate Indira Jaising, on whose petition the 2017 verdict was delivered, told the bench that every high court is adopting a different procedure and it is her submission that there should be some uniformity in the process.
The lawyers appearing in the matter referred to the process adopted by some high courts on designating lawyers as senior advocates.
“We cannot have supervisory jurisdiction over the high courts,” the bench observed, adding, “You say this is the concern of the bar. All of us have been part of the bar”.
“Counsel across the board have expressed their request that the issue of revisiting the judgment on any aspect, if any, be examined by this court on a priority,” the bench said while posting the matter for hearing on February 22. The bench noted in its order that there are individual petitions which deal with issues which may have arisen in different high courts.
“In order to maintain a proper procedure for hearing, it is agreed that at the inception, the issue arising from the judgment in question alone will be dealt with and dependent on the view taken by this court thereafter, some matters may or may not survive,” it said.