Imagine a crowded courtroom at 10:30 a.m. on a Monday morning. A plaintiff is before the Supreme Court, the last court in the land, and for every case at this stage, the stakes are high—there are no appeals or second chances. Whether it’s a death sentence, a company liquidation, a child custody battle or a bail application, a litigant usually has no more than two minutes with his lawyer to plead the case before a bench of judges.
This is where the senior advocate—a rarefied group of the most sought-after and often highly paid lawyers in the city—steps in. From late Fali Nariman to names like Mukul Rohatgi, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, Harish Salve. Among others, the legal acumen of this bunch is often spoken of in the same breath as the fees they command for each appearance.
There are currently 639 senior advocates in the Supreme Court, of which 116 were nominated this year alone. The designation of this unusually large number of senior advocates has invited its share of criticism, with concerns expressed about the “quality” of those receiving the prestigious tag.
Talking about how “too much Senior Advocates“Could lead to a weakening of the Bar,” said a senior advocate who has held the position for more than a decade, on condition of anonymity, “Earlier, when someone said ‘doyen of the Bar’, you might think of a handful. Seniors. Now with 200 doyens, what is their word worth? A weak bar is a concern for the independence of the judiciary.”
Still, there are others who say this once-exclusive club is now a more democratic space with more representation for women and first-generation advocates.
Who is Senior Advocate?
The title of ‘Senior Advocate’ conferred on members of the Bar by the Supreme Court or the High Court is prestigious. Retired judges of the High Court are also seen applying for posts in the Supreme Court.
Once a lawyer – who has at least 10 years of experience at the bar – is designated a senior advocate, he is not allowed to take on clients or cases directly, but is briefed on cases by another lawyer. Essentially, the complainant cannot approach the senior advocate directly, but goes to one Advocate-on-Record (AoR), who ‘briefs’ the senior.
The idea is that a senior advocate argues a proposition of law that may be independent of the client or the factual matrix of the case. Armed with these briefs, a senior lawyer can appear in court, in several cases in a day.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde once described his tribe as “like a cab hired only for a day and a date”. The huge influence that tag carries is no small part of the allure of being a senior advocate.
A 2015 study by the Delhi-based Vidhi Center for Legal Policy found that when a senior advocate argued, the likelihood of agreeing to accept a case for a detailed hearing was twice as high as in a case without a senior advocate – while senior advocates were present. 59.6% success rate in getting their cases admitted, for other lawyers, it was 33.71% success.
According to the 2023 book Court on Trial: A Data-Driven Account of the Supreme Court of India – National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, co-authored by Professor Aparna Chandra – while senior advocates constitute only 1% of the bar, at the admission stage they constitute almost Occurs in 40% of cases.
Their role as “gatekeepers” influencing the court to accept cases is important given how pressed judges often are for time. The book says that a typical hearing on whether to grant a special leave petition — under which an aggrieved party is granted special permission to appear before the Supreme Court — lasts an average of 1 minute and 33 seconds.
Data analyzed by Chandra from more than 5,000 cases shows that while senior advocates have a higher probability of being heard, that pattern does not persist as the case progresses. At the final hearing, the success rate of a senior advocate is 57% compared to 60% for other advocates. Which means, since the fate of a case can be very well sealed at an early stage, engaging senior counsel at that stage can have maximum impact.
Which explains the skyrocketing fees some of these big names command – from a lakh initially to 17-25 lakhs per hearing.
How to become a ‘senior’
In 2017, the Supreme Court laid down objective criteria for appointing senior advocates in a public interest litigation by Indira Jaising, the first woman appointed as a senior advocate of the Bombay High Court.
The process now involves courts inviting applications from lawyers. Selection is based on a set of criteria, including reported judgment, experience, publications and a personal “suitability” interview.
Until the 2017 decision, the courts will receive invitations or applications and discuss the candidacy in full court to grant the designation. Promising advocates such as former Supreme Court Justice Rohinton Nariman have oral histories at the Bar that date to the age of 37 or earlier. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud 39 attaining office, critics of the earlier system pointed out that they were all from distinguished legal families.
It was Jaisingh who started the “gown wapsi movement” and “dropped” her senior advisor’s gown which she called a “symbol of discrimination”, eventually paving the way for reforms in the process.
However, after some time, the new process started to be criticized. Last year, the 2017 rules were challenged in court and the government also demanded a review of the existing process.
“The (existing) system has become the subject of ridicule, memes and jokes. In Delhi, we recently got 170 designations (of senior advocates) … advocates are floating (in the city),” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court during a recent hearing on December 6. While Mehta insisted that the government is not involved in anything. A person , “The mandate is a responsibility given by the court, it should not be shared,” he said.
In 2023, the central government sought to change the 2017 guidelines for designation of senior advocates, seeking some improvements in the criteria.
The 2017 decision, on a 100-point scale, allocated 15 points to writing articles in newspapers or journals. This was followed by an increase in lawyers publishing on several media portals.
Keeping this in mind, the SC reduced the marks allotted to this criterion from 15 to 5 in 2023. There are also concerns that hiring more advocates is a “populist move”.
“Especially when it comes to women, appointing them without much to brief them will only harm their existing practice,” said a former judge.
‘Current system more inclusive’
However, many of these concerns are dismissed by younger members of the Bar as a response to greater competition or reluctance to change the status quo by existing senior groups.
“After the 2017 decision, the designation process is certainly more inclusive and a better system than before. It also makes it easier for young members of the bar or those practicing as first-generation lawyers to aspire for the designation,” said Anas Tanveer, record-on-record.
Many other first-generation lawyers, especially women, see the existing process as a step in the right direction.
Consider this: In 1977, Leela Seth, a lawyer practicing in the Delhi High Court, became the first woman to be named a senior advocate.
A year later she became the first woman judge of the Delhi High Court. Then another woman took 30 years to become a senior advocate. In 2007, Indu Malhotra, who became a Supreme Court judge in 2018, was appointed senior advocate.
Since the new rules came into effect in 2017, 40 women have been appointed as senior advocates.
“This process also allows lawyers who may not have high visibility with judges but have made significant contributions in other ways to be considered. For example, the scoring system introduces measurable benchmarks such as academic contributions and pro bono work. It also allows lawyers who do not have high visibility with judges to be considered. may but have contributed significantly in other ways,” said Tushar Sannu Dahiya, another first-generation lawyer practicing in the Delhi High Court.
Senior advocate Anindita Pujari pointed out that the new process has ensured that only SC lawyers with visibility cannot aspire for the designation. “A person who has specialized technical or regulatory practice in the court and may not appear before the SC on a daily basis can also be appointed. This was never possible before,” said the priest.
For instance, NS Nappinai was appointed senior advocate by the Supreme Court in January this year. Nappinai has had an immersive practice in cyber law and technology for over two decades.
“A lot of this talk (about having more seniors) is because it’s big money. Having more seniors cuts into the pie of existing senior advocates,” said another lawyer who did not want to be identified.
Advocates of the additional posts say it makes legal services more accessible. “If litigants can afford senior advocates who are starting at lower fees, why is it a bad thing? We also get visibility in the court. It’s a win-win,” said the newly-designated senior advocate.
Vipin Nair, president of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, says the system has its own way of determining standards. “Once you become a senior, it is the lawyers, who were your competition till then, who should send you work. They should brief you. If they don’t think you’re good enough, the briefs won’t come. The market will eventually balance it out. This is a smart call a lawyer should take before applying to be a senior advocate. Let people apply, it will test the competition,” he said.
Why should you buy our membership?
You want to be the smartest in the room.
You want access to our award-winning journalism.
You don’t want to be confused and misinformed.
Choose your subscription package