Examining the Supreme Court’s 2026 Guidelines on Designation of Senior Advocates

ABSTRACT

The Supreme Court of India recently reconsidered the Senior Advocate designation process and replaced the 2023 point-based framework with the new guidelines for designation of Senior Advocates, 2026. The updated system emphasizes qualitative criteria such as ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge rather than just numerical scoring and interviews. This article analyses the background and evolution of Senior Advocate designations, the rationale for reform, key provisions of the 2026 Guidelines, and their implications for the legal profession and access to justice.

KEYWORDS

Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India, designation, guidelines, point-based framework, qualitative evaluation.

INTRODUCTION

In India, the title of Senior Advocate has been regarded as a mark of distinction, conferred on lawyers with demonstrated legal excellence. Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, recognises the designation of Senior advocates as of exceptional legal ability, professional standing, and ethical standards. Over time, the Hon’ble Court has tried to make the designation process more structured and transparent. Landmark judgments such as Indira Jaising 1 [(2017) 9 SCC 766] and Indira Jaising 2 [(2023) 8 SCC 1] introduced point-based assessment and committee vetting. However, in Jitender @ Kalla v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2025 SCC OnLine SC 377], the Court found the quantitative system to be highly subjective and practically unworkable. With regard to this ruling, on 10 February 2026, a Full Court meeting approved the “Guidelines for Designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India, 2026.” These new Guidelines scrap the earlier points and interview model and institute a holistic, consensus-driven framework.

EVOLUTION OF THE SENIOR ADVOCATE DESIGNATION FRAMEWORK 

Over the years, the Supreme Court has been riddled with making Senior Advocate appointments fair and credible. Earlier, the process was ad hoc, which drew judicial and Bar input without fixed criteria. In Indira Jaising – 1, the Supreme Court itself first delineated formal norms and recognized that the extant method lacked objectivity and transparency. It directed the formation of a permanent five-member committee comprising the Chief Justice, two senior judges, the Attorney General, and a Bar nominee to evaluate candidates on a points system. The points were now allotted for years of practice, significant judgments, pro bono work, publications, and a mandatory interview. The Court later published it as the 2018 Guidelines, which fixed a 100-point scale for the abovementioned criteria. 

In the case of Indira Jaising – 2, the Court tweaked the scheme. It reduced publication marks, increased the weight for core legal work, and made secret-ballot voting an exception, which required reasons to be used. The updated 2023 Guidelines, however, still relied on numeric scores and personal interviews. Over time, this approach drew criticism. Many advocates felt that short interviews could not capture true merit and that the points system became rigid and burdensome. Further in the Jitender case, a three-judge bench agreed and found the point-based regime to be highly subjective and practically unworkable; thus, they expressly put an end to the 100-point assessment system. The judgment removed the structured committee and interview, vesting ultimate authority back in the Full Court. 

THE NEED OF 2026 GUIDLINES

There was more than just one factor that drove this reform. In Kalla, the Hon’ble Court warned that the numerical framework had become unworkable and ill-suited to assessing legal merit. They observed that it was unrealistic to expect a committee to allot scores for voluminous case histories and written submissions. The fixed points often failed to capture advocacy skills or integrity, and, at worst, could reward mediocrity simply for longevity.  It has also been argued that interviews were not an objective measure and that a brief question and answer session might privilege eloquence over substance. This raised concerns, and it was observed that the legal fraternity also grew uneasy with such kind of secrecy. Several concerns were raised that the process lacked clarity and consistency.  

KEY FEATURES OF THE UPDATED FRAMEWORK

The 2026 Guidelines responded to criticisms of the previous guidelines and approached by removing rigid scores and focusing on merit-based, transparent procedures. This resulted in a qualitative rather than quantitative system, which was grounded in judicial discretion and broad consultation, framed with the intention to ensure excellence and fairness. The Guidelines introduced several notable features. 

1. A three-member Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates shall handle all the matters. It will be chaired by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) and include the two senior-most Supreme Court judges. The Committee shall meet as exigencies require and will be supported by a Permanent Secretariat. This Secretariat will be responsible for initiating the process for the designation of Senior Advocates at least once every year by inviting applications. 
2. Notices calling for applications must be published on the Supreme Court website, with additional intimation to the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Advocates-on-Record Association. Applicants have a minimum of 21 days from the notice to submit their applications online. 
3. To be able to fulfill the eligibility criteria, an applicant must have at least ten years’ standing as an Advocate, or ten years combined as an advocate and a district judge or judicial member of a tribunal with equivalent qualification. The lawyer should practise mainly in the Supreme Court, though candidates with specialized tribunal expertise may receive concessions on Supreme Court appearances. Additionally, an advocate who had an application rejected within the last two years, or deferred within one year, is ineligible to reapply until those periods pass. 
4. Once the applications are received, the Secretariat gathers detailed information on each candidate’s reputation, conduct, integrity, reported judgments, publications, pro bono work, etc., and then publishes the list of proposed candidates on the Supreme Court website, inviting comments from the legal community within 15 days to submit suggestions or objections regarding the candidates. This step is intended to enhance transparency and catch any serious issues before the full Court’s deliberation.
5. Additionally, the Full Court examines each candidate in light of the compiled data. The Guidelines direct that the Court make its overall assessment on broad qualitative criteria, such as on the basis of ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law. 
6. However, if the judges identify a deserving lawyer who failed to apply, they may confer the title on their own motion, with the consent of the advocate. The advocates also have the option to reapply, in case wherein their application has not been considered favourably after waiting for two years. Deferred cases, i.e., pending issues, cannot be reconsidered for one year. Importantly, the Full Court can later review or recall the designation of any Senior Advocate if that person’s subsequent conduct clearly disentitles them.

IMPLICATIONS

The new guidelines focus on qualitative benchmarks that recognise genuine excellence. It aims towards greater transparency through methods of publication and feedback. The creation of a permanent secretariat and a formal committee allows for designation through established institutions, making the process more consistent. The possibility of recalling designations may encourage designees to uphold higher ethical standards. Although the abolition of interviews and points may relieve some pressure from the applicants, the two-year waiting periods for unsuccessful applicants could be a source of complaint. The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has urged the Chief Justice of India to reconsider waiting periods, indicating possible pushback. 

CONCLUSION

To conclude, the Supreme Court’s 2026 Senior Advocate designation Guidelines represent that the designation of Senior Advocate must be based on merit and character. As the Court itself has noted, this process shall remain a recognition of exceptional legal ability, professional standing, and ethical standards. The emphasis on ability and integrity shall showcase the law’s purpose of fostering justice and excellence. Vigilance is still needed to ensure that the more flexible, consensus-based system lives up to its promise of fairness and transparency. 

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”

WRITTEN BY: STUTI ANVI