The Hindu Editorial Analysis
28 June 2025
Practising Equality in Constitutional Courts
(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 08)
Topic: GS 2 – Structure, Organization and Functioning of the Judiciary; Issues Relating to the Development and Management of Social Sector/Services
Context:
The Supreme Court recently revisited the method of designating senior advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961. In Kallu v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi (2023), the court reflected on earlier judgments (Indira Jaising case), highlighting concerns about systemic inequality, the dominance of elite networks in the legal profession, and lack of transparency and equality in constitutional courts.
Introduction: Judiciary and Social Justice
India’s judiciary is seen as a pillar of democracy, but deep inequalities exist in its structure. The legal profession is hierarchical and elitist, often undermining access to justice. Recent court rulings highlight the need to democratize court processes, especially in designating senior advocates, where disparity and lack of transparency are common.
Key Issues in Focus
1. Senior Advocate Designation – The Root Concern
- Section 16, Advocates Act, 1961: Creates two classes — Advocates and Senior Advocates.
- Designation depends on “standing at the Bar or special knowledge or experience in law.”
- The Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) judgment mandated reforms in this process, but many ambiguities and exclusions persist.
2. Discrimination in the Legal Profession
- The profession favours a small elite, creating a legal plutocracy.
- A Reuters report (2014) revealed that only a few elite lawyers argued most of the top cases, influencing landmark rulings.
- Women, SC/ST/OBC candidates, and those from regional or non-metropolitan backgrounds remain severely underrepresented.
3. Unequal Access to Justice
- Arbitrary criteria lead to exclusion.
- The recent Kallu case and earlier Indira Jaising ruling both stressed that the designation process is opaque, elitist, and subjective.
Judicial Responses and Gaps
1. Inadequate Reforms
- Courts accepted the subjective nature of designation.
- No mechanism to prevent extraneous considerations or correct errors was instituted.
2. Failure to Set Guidelines
- The Supreme Court failed to define clear standards on merit and evaluation.
- Recommendations to bar discrimination and favouritism were not acted upon.
3. Ignoring Global Best Practices
- Jurisdictions like UK, South Africa, Australia, Nigeria, and Singapore follow objective tests for legal designation and promote representativeness.
Implications on Equality and Rule of Law
1. Distortion of Access
- The imbalance legitimizes elitism in legal institutions.
- Creates a system of structural exclusion, reducing public trust.
2. Damage to Judicial Credibility
- Faith in courts suffers when only elite lawyers dominate.
- The lack of diversity challenges constitutional morality and public confidence.
Conclusion: Towards Inclusive Judicial Systems
India’s constitutional courts must uphold equality and transparency. Reforms in the senior advocate designation process are key to ensuring inclusivity. There must be a rational, empirical, and inclusive framework that removes hierarchy and enables equal opportunity, aligning with the spirit of constitutional justice.