Supreme Court Petition Alleges Flaws in High Court's Senior Advocate Designation
A petition has been filed before the Supreme Court, raising serious concerns over the transparency, fairness, and diversity in the designation of senior advocates by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The plea, submitted by advocate Satish Chaudhary, questions the process used in the high court's October 2025 list of newly designated senior advocates.
Constitutional Violations and Judicial Precedents Cited
Scheduled for a hearing on April 20, the petition alleges that the high court's selection process violated constitutional guarantees of equality and ignored binding judicial precedents. Specifically, it references the landmark rulings in Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India, which established structured guidelines to ensure objectivity and inclusivity in such designations.
Chaudhary, who has been practising law for over three decades since his enrolment in 1992, claims he was unfairly excluded despite meeting key eligibility criteria. According to the petition, he scored 50 out of 100 in the official evaluation, a score higher than several candidates who were ultimately designated. The petition notes that candidates with scores as low as 37, 38, 42, and 46 were included in the final list, while Chaudhary's name was not even placed before the full court for consideration. This exclusion, he argues, amounts to arbitrary action and violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
Lack of Transparency and Inconsistent Application
A major contention in the petition is the alleged lack of transparency. Chaudhary asserts that no reasons were communicated for his rejection, and the marking system was applied inconsistently. He identifies himself as a first-generation lawyer from a socially and economically marginalised Muslim community in Yamunanagar, Haryana. The petition highlights that the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in the Indira Jaising case explicitly emphasised the importance of diversity, particularly encouraging the inclusion of first-generation lawyers and underrepresented groups.
Despite providing details of his background and pro bono work—factors specifically sought in the application process—the petition claims no weightage was given to these aspects. This, Chaudhary contends, defeats the very purpose of the diversity principle emphasised by the apex court.
Broader Legal Fraternity Concerns and Resolution
The petition also mentions that the State Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana passed a resolution on October 23, 2025, seeking urgent clarification from the high court on its evaluation criteria and whether the process aligned with Supreme Court guidelines. This resolution came after receiving several complaints from members of the legal fraternity, including advocates practising before the high court and district courts, alleging that proper procedure was not followed before finalising the list.
In October 2025, the high court administration designated 76 lawyers as senior advocates—a title conferred on those with "ability, standing at the Bar, or specialised knowledge or experience in law." The list included five women. Senior advocates enjoy certain courtroom privileges, professional standing, and are regarded as markers of distinction and ethical responsibility.
Petitioner's Demands and Future Implications
Chaudhary has sought directions from the Supreme Court to quash the October 2025 notification and to reconsider his candidature before the full court meeting. The case underscores ongoing debates about procedural integrity and inclusivity in the legal system, potentially setting a precedent for how senior advocate designations are handled across Indian courts.
