Context

• On May 13, 2025, the Supreme Court of India passed a judgment in Jitender @ Kalla vs State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi, revisiting its earlier decisions in Indira Jaising vs Supreme Court of India (2017 and 2023).
• The judgment focused on refining the methodology for designating lawyers as senior advocates.
• Despite its significant implications for judicial equity and democratic access to justice, the ruling received little public attention, mistakenly perceived as an internal matter of the judiciary.
• However, the issue cuts much deeper, revealing the systemic inequality entrenched within the Indian legal profession.

The Legal Profession’s Public Character and Systemic Inequality

• The legal profession, unlike many others, bears a distinctly public character. It forms a cornerstone of both judicial and political democracies.
• Consequently, any stratification within this profession, especially one sanctioned by statute and reinforced by judicial endorsement, has profound repercussions on the integrity of the justice delivery system.
• India's legal hierarchy, particularly the designation of senior advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, embodies what may be described as a form of legal plutocracy.
• This classification, predicated on ambiguous criteria such as ‘standing at the Bar’ and ‘special knowledge or experience in law,’ institutionalises inequality within a profession that should ideally be democratic and egalitarian.
• The resultant divide undermines the constitutional promise of equality before the law and reduces access to justice for marginalized voices.

Comparative Analysis: Lessons from the United States

• The danger of elite capture in the legal profession is not unique to India.
• The American experience, as detailed in Reuters' 2014 report ‘The Echo Chamber, is illustrative.
• The study revealed that a mere 66 out of 17,000 lawyers who petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court controlled 43% of the appeals, a clear indication of corporate and elite dominance.
• Though India has not replicated this model wholesale, the structural vulnerability is apparent.
• With the senior advocate system, Indian courts risk gravitating toward a similarly exclusionary structure where a privileged few monopolize legal representation in constitutional and high-stakes matters.

Judicial Response and Its Limitations

• The Supreme Court's attempts to reform this process, notably through the 2017 Indira Jaising judgment, and more recently in Jitender, have focused largely on procedural refinements rather than substantive reform.
• While the Court acknowledged that the point-based system for designation was highly subjective, it chose not to strike down the classification altogether.
• Instead, it suggested peripheral adjustments, such as High Courts framing new rules without addressing the core constitutional challenge: whether this classification passes the test of Article 14 (equality before law).
• In fact, the Jitender judgment paradoxically critiques the very guidelines laid down in Jaising as subjective, yet continues to endorse the structure.
• This internal inconsistency raises questions about the coherence of the Court’s reasoning.
• The deeper issue whether such classification serves any public or constitutional interest, remains ignored.

The Core Constitutional Challenge and Consequences

• The Core Constitutional Challenge
  • The challenge to Section 16 and related Supreme Court Rules was grounded in the argument that the classification is inherently arbitrary and discriminatory.
  • The designation does not necessarily advance the legal system; rather, it reinforces social stratification.
  • Many competent lawyers who are not designated continue to contribute significantly to the cause of justice.
  • As such, the distinction lacks a rational nexus with the objectives it purports to serve.
  • Nevertheless, the Court sidestepped this argument, asserting that as long as procedural safeguards exist, the classification can be maintained. This is problematic.
• Consequences: Intellectual Apartheid and Judicial Insularity
  • The stratification of the legal profession creates what can only be described as intellectual apartheid.
  • A small cadre of star lawyers dominates the judicial discourse, marginalising thousands of competent but less visible lawyers.
  • This insularity narrows the perspectives available to the Court, impacting the richness and representativeness of legal arguments, especially on matters of national importance.
  • The challenge to the Waqf (Amendment) Act serves as a recent example, where only a select few voices were heard.

Conclusion

• A truly democratic legal profession should prioritise competence, commitment to justice, and representation of diverse voices, not social pedigree or courtroom visibility.
• The time has come for India to evolve a more equitable, transparent, and constitutionally sound system that recognizes all advocates as equal participants in the justice system.
• Only then can the promise of justice, social, economic, and political, be truly realised.