Systemic Disparity within the Legal Fraternity in India The Supreme Court of India, in a recent decision, has revised the methodology and criteria for designating senior lawyers, based on the case Jitender @ Kalla vs State (Govt.) of NCT Of Delhi (2025). This decision revisits the judgments in the Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court of India cases of 2017 and 2023, directing High Courts to frame new rules in light of the judgment delivered on May 13, 2025

• Legal Framework:
  • Section 16, Advocates Act, 1961 allows SC/HCs to designate "senior advocates" based on merit, creating a two-tier system.
  • 2025 SC Judgment (Jitender @ Kalla v. NCT of Delhi): Directed HCs to revise designation rules, calling existing point-based system "subjective" but upheld Section 16's validity.
• Core Issues:
  • Constitutional Violation: Alleged breach of Article 14 (equality) by creating a "legal oligarchy".
  • Systemic Bias: Designation favors elite lawyers ("legal plutocracy"), marginalizing women and underprivileged groups.
  • Commercialization: Resembles U.S. model where <1% lawyers handle 43% Supreme Court cases (Reuters, 2014), privileging corporate interests.
  • Lack of Objectivity: Judges accused of "homo-social morphing" (favoring similar backgrounds).
• Judicial History:
  • Indira Jaising v. SC (2017): Upheld Section 16, introduced "reforms" but ignored classification arbitrariness.
  • 2025 Judgment: Criticized 2017 guidelines as flawed but avoided constitutional review.
    • • Current Challenges and Inequality* 1.F.S. Nariman criticized the development of a caste-like system among lawyers. 2. Many eligible and deserving lawyers remain unnoticed, overshadowed by "star lawyers." This monopolization leads to intellectual apartheid and negates judicial diversity. 3. Key national issues are often decided by submissions from a select few, making litigation a privilege for the rich, contrary to India's constitutional ideals.