Senior Advocate Indira Jaising on Friday (January 31) raised concerns before the Supreme Court regarding lobbying and judges' recommendations influencing the designation of Senior Advocates. Jaising pointed out that she had filed the petition, in which the 2017 three-judge bench judgment governing Senior Advocate designations was passed, in order to end “unlimited lobbying” in the system. “A lot of lobbying is taking place even under the current system (after the judgment). This petition was filed to end the system of lobbying. Your lordships will have to stop this”, she highlighted. A bench of over by Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih was hearing a case involving false statements made by a senior advocate in multiple remission pleas in the Supreme Court. Noticing the false affidavits filed, the Court decided to take up the issue relating to senior designations and the duties of AoRs. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who has sought a relook into the Senior Advocate designation process in this case, concurred with Jaising's concern submitting, “Only she could have said this but it's a fact. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact. And it's really embarrassing.” Jaising further submitted, “I am flagging an issue that no sitting judge should give a recommendation to anybody saying that this person should be designated. Person should be designated only on the application.” The 2017 judgment established a structured framework for designations. This judgment replaced the secret ballot system with an objective evaluation, including a point-based assessment and the establishment of a Permanent Committee consisting of Seniormost judges of the court. In 2023, the Supreme Court refined these guidelines, focusing on merit-based evaluations, promoting diversity, and addressing systemic concerns. During the hearing, Justice Oka reiterated the Court's earlier concern over the current system, which does not allow for reducing marks based on doubts about a candidate's integrity. He also questioned whether it is appropriate to subject an advocate with extensive experience and a strong record of pro bono work to an interview for designation as Senior Advocate. Jaising argued that her concern was not about dignity but about the potential for manipulation due to the high weightage of the interview, i.e., 25 marks out of 100. “It's not about dignity but rather having such a high weightage on an interview leaves scope for manipulation. I am sorry to be blunt.” She further criticized lobbying practices, asserting that no sitting judge should provide recommendations for candidates. “There are some people who have access to judges, others don't. And I am one of those who believe that there should be no access to judges in the matter of designation at all. I want to raise this issue. I have seen cases where judges are giving recommendations to the Permanent Committee which they (candidates) are annexing to their applications”, Jaising submitted. When Justice Oka said that Rules permit such recommendations, Jaising responded that the Rules need to be changed. Justice Oka remarked that this is worth consideration. Justice Oka reiterated that the objective of the Court was to ensure that no undeserving person is designated while also preventing the exclusion of deserving candidates. He said that the current bench will merely flag any issue that arises and request the matter to be kept before a bench that can decide it. “Ultimately, the purpose is to ensure that no undeserved people should be designated and nobody who deserves should be excluded. We are only going to flag those issues. We will record the issue. A bench of lesser strength can always say that these are the issues, and the matter can be kept before the Chief Justice.”