Allahabad High Court Seeks Replies on Plea Questioning Designation of 90 Senior Advocates

The Allahabad High Court has issued a notice on a petition that challenges the recent designation of 90 lawyers as Senior Advocates. The petition was filed by advocate Anupam Mehrotra, who claimed that the selection process was unfair and went against the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the Indira Jaising case and Jitender v. State (NCT of Delhi).

A Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Rajeev Bharti directed Mehrotra to add all 90 designated advocates as respondents, noting that they were “necessary and proper parties” to the case. The Court ordered that notices be served to them through email.

The Court also asked the Registrar General and other respondents to file their replies within four weeks, with the petitioner allowed two weeks to file a rejoinder. The matter will now be heard on January 28, 2026.

In his petition, Mehrotra alleged that many lawyers who were given the senior designation did not meet the merit requirements. According to him, the Permanent Committee conducted the evaluation in great haste—spending approximately 3.6 minutes on each candidate during the first four days and 2.5 minutes per candidate on the last day of the process.

He claimed this was not enough time to conduct a proper assessment. He also pointed out that 52 out of the 90 designated advocates could not cite even 10 reported judgments from the past five years, while 27 lawyers did not submit any citations at all.

Another concern raised was that the Committee allegedly gave undue weight to the income of candidates, even though the Supreme Court has held that financial status should not be a deciding factor.

The petition further disclosed that Mehrotra himself was recommended for the Senior Advocate designation by a sitting judge of the High Court, but the proposal was rejected without any reasons being communicated to him.

Mehrotra argued that during his interaction with Committee members, it appeared that the focus was more on the “wealth” of candidates rather than their professional knowledge or wisdom.

Mehrotra argued the case in person, while advocate Vijay Dixit appeared for the High Court.