In a significant development concerning the legal fraternity, the Supreme Court of India has notified the “Guidelines for Designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court of India, 2026”, formally replacing the 2023 guidelines. The notification, issued on February 11, 2026, follows the Court’s decision dated May 13, 2025 in Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. (2025 INSC 667).
The new guidelines were approved in a Full Court meeting held on February 10, 2026, under the leadership of the Chief Justice of India. They aim to streamline the process, enhance transparency, and lay down clearer eligibility and evaluation criteria for designation as Senior Advocate.
Permanent Committee to Oversee Designations
Under the 2026 framework, all matters relating to designation will be handled by a Permanent Committee titled the “Committee for Designation of Senior Advocates.” The Committee will consist of:
- The Chief Justice of India (Chairperson), and
- Two senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court (Members).
A Permanent Secretariat will assist the Committee and initiate the designation process at least once every year by inviting applications from eligible advocates.
Annual Application Process and Public Consultation
The Secretariat is required to publish a notice inviting applications on the official website of the Supreme Court. Intimation will also be given to the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association.
Applicants will be given a minimum of 21 days to submit their applications online or as directed.
After receiving applications, the Secretariat will publish the proposals on the Supreme Court website and invite suggestions and views from stakeholders. At least 15 days’ time must be given for such feedback.
This public consultation mechanism reinforces transparency and peer evaluation in the designation process.
Eligibility Conditions: Experience, Age and Practice
The 2026 Guidelines prescribe clear eligibility criteria:
- Minimum 10 years’ standing as an Advocate, or
- 10 years’ combined standing as an Advocate and as a District & Sessions Judge or Judicial Member of a Tribunal (meeting eligibility standards equivalent to a District Judge).
Applicants must:
- Primarily practice in the Supreme Court (with concession possible for domain experts practicing before specialized tribunals),
- Have attained the age of 45 years (unless relaxed by the Full Court), and
- Not have had their application rejected within the preceding two years or deferred within the preceding one year.
Comprehensive Disclosure Requirements
The application format (Annexure ‘A’) requires detailed disclosures, including:
- Number of reported and unreported judgments argued as lead and assisting counsel,
- Pro bono and amicus curiae appearances,
- Academic publications and teaching engagements,
- Nature and field of practice,
- Professional income,
- Prior applications for designation,
- Criminal antecedents, FIRs, or disciplinary proceedings before Bar Councils.
Applicants must also disclose whether they are first-generation lawyers, reflecting an attempt to capture diversity indicators in the profession.
Evaluation Criteria: Ability, Standing and Special Knowledge
The Full Court will assess each application on the basis of:
Ability – Sound knowledge of law, advocacy skills, legal scholarship, and capacity to rationally critique judicial decisions. Writing articles and commentaries forms part of this assessment.
Standing at the Bar – Fairness in court, respect towards judges and fellow lawyers, professional ethics, mentoring of juniors, pro bono contributions, integrity and overall reputation in the legal fraternity.
Special Knowledge or Expertise in Law – Recognized domain expertise in areas such as Arbitration, Insolvency and Bankruptcy, Company Law, Intellectual Property, Taxation and other specialized branches.
Additionally, the guidelines emphasize that the advocate must have no criminal antecedents, must not have been convicted for offences involving moral turpitude or contempt of court, and must not have been punished by any Bar Council for misconduct.
Power to Designate Suo Motu
Even if a deserving advocate does not apply, the Full Court may recommend designation independently, subject to the advocate’s consent.
Decision-making will ordinarily be by consensus. In the absence of consensus, majority view will prevail. Secret ballot may be resorted to only in exceptional situations with reasons recorded.
Special Provision for Former High Court Judges
The 2026 Guidelines contain a dedicated mechanism for former Chief Justices and Judges of High Courts to submit request-cum-consent letters for designation.
However, former judges holding or accepting any full-time post-retirement assignment will not be considered during the tenure of such assignment.
Cooling-Off Period and Review
Applications not favourably considered will be eligible for review after two years. Deferred cases will not be reconsidered before one year.
The Full Court also retains the authority to review and recall a designation if the advocate is later found guilty of conduct that disentitles him or her to the honour, after granting an opportunity of hearing.
