Practising Equality in Constitutional Courts
The Supreme Court’s stance on reforming entry into the legal profession reignites debate on fairness, merit, and access in India’s judiciary. 
Why in News?
On May 12, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment revisiting two earlier rulings (from 2007 and 2023) in the case of Judges of Kerala vs State of Gujarat & Others. The apex court addressed long-standing concerns about the validity of Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the larger issue of systemic inequality in the legal profession.
Introduction
The judiciary, a cornerstone of India’s democracy, is expected to embody fairness and equality. However, the internal stratification of the legal profession, especially in the designation of ‘senior advocates,’ has come under scrutiny. The latest Supreme Court decision raises key questions: Who gets designated, under what standards, and with what implications for access to justice?
Key Issues and Institutional Concerns
1. Section 16 of the Advocates Act under review
This section permits designation of certain lawyers as “senior advocates,” giving them a special status. Critics argue that this has led to elitism and systemic exclusion, creating an unequal professional hierarchy.
2. Opaque standards for senior designation
Though courts insist on “merit” and “ability,” the criteria often appear subjective. The lack of transparency has disproportionately favored privileged sections, particularly those from urban, English-speaking backgrounds.
3. Comparative international lessons
The U.S., for instance, moved away from similar elitist models. “Echo chamber” practices—where only a few gain access—have been identified as undermining wider professional development and diversity.
4. Lack of socio-economic representation
The Supreme Court’s verdict notes the judicial fraternity in India has “systemic bias” that restricts upward mobility for those from underprivileged or non-metropolitan areas.
5. Legal implications for equality and the Constitution
Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 39A (Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid) of the Indian Constitution are seen to be at odds with current designation practices, prompting calls for reform.
Challenges and the Way Forward
-
Reform or abolish Section 16: There is growing consensus that India must rethink or repeal the senior designation system entirely or replace it with a merit-based, democratic model.
-
Broader access to judicial roles: The systemic disparities reflect not just in designations but also in judicial appointments, calling for a transparent, reservation-aware process.
-
Institutional audits: Bodies like the Bar Council of India and High Courts need periodic reviews to ensure fair representation across class, caste, region, and gender lines.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s latest ruling has reopened critical debates about legal elitism, institutional bias, and access to power within the legal fraternity. It is a moment to reflect on whether India’s courts truly reflect its democratic ideals, and to push for reforms that prioritize inclusion, fairness, and constitutional morality.
Q&A Section
1. What was the Supreme Court’s verdict on May 12, 2025, about?
It revisited judgments from 2007 and 2023, critically analyzing how advocates are designated as “senior” and whether such designations uphold principles of equality.
2. What is Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961?
It allows the legal profession to confer the title of “senior advocate” to certain lawyers, giving them elevated status and privileges in court. This provision is now under scrutiny for being elitist.
3. Why is the senior advocate designation seen as problematic?
Because it often reflects subjective and opaque criteria, disproportionately benefits lawyers from privileged backgrounds, and can restrict fair competition in the legal field.
4. What is the Supreme Court’s concern with the current system?
The court noted that the system lacks transparency and equality, leading to a form of institutional elitism that can conflict with constitutional principles like Article 14.
5. What changes are being suggested going forward?
Possible options include repealing Section 16, creating clear and objective criteria for senior designations, and broadening representation within the judiciary.
