Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

c) It is doubtful whether by interviewing a candidate for a few minutes, his personality or suitability can be really tested. 25 points out of 100 are assigned for interview/interaction, constituting 1/4th of the total points.

 d) As recorded in paragraph 73.7, the duty of the Permanent Committee is to make its overall assessment of the advocate concerned based on a points-based formula. No other method of making an overall assessment has been provided. No one can dispute that an advocate who lacks integrity or does not possess a quality of fairness is disentitled to designation. The reason is simple as such an advocate cannot be held to have any standing at the Bar. Moreover, there may be complaints pending against an advocate with the disciplinary committee of the Bar Councils. The question is how the cases of such advocates can be considered by the Permanent Committee. Even if members of the Permanent Committee know that the applicant advocate lacks integrity, is not fair, does not act as an officer of the Court, or against whom complaints are pending for professional misconduct, there is no scope to reduce the points on that count. If such an advocate excels at the time of the interview or otherwise renders excellent performance, he cannot be given lesser marks because the candidate lacks integrity, character or fairness. The reason is that 25 marks are to be assigned not based on his performance before the Court or his general reputation but on his performance during the interview/interaction.

22. He pointed out that the marks system provides for awarding up to 25 marks based on the interview or interaction, but does not include any provision to deduct marks for professional misconduct. As a result, an Advocate who performs well in the interview and scores well in other categories may still be designated, even if he or she has a reputation for misleading the court or has been held guilty of contempt. He contended that this omission undermines the integrity of the selection process and fails to ensure that only deserving candidates are designated. The learned  counsel further submitted that the interview process prescribed under the current framework is an inadequate measure for assessing the suitability and personality of a candidate. He contended that a brief interaction of 15 or 30 minutes cannot be a definitive test of an Advocate’s competence, integrity, or standing at the Bar. An Advocate’s capabilities, he argued, must be evaluated primarily on the basis of their courtroom performance over time, rather than a short and subjective interview.

 33. Ms. Jaising admitted that in the Writ Petition (C) No. 454 of 2015, she had not prayed for any interview system to be included in the process of designation and that interviews are susceptible to manipulation. However, she supported retaining the interview system and submitted that the weightage of marks given to an interview can be reduced and marking on integrity be explicitly included. She suggested renaming the process from ‘interview’ to ‘interaction’.

(iii) Interview or Interaction

67. Now, we come to the interview or interaction of the Permanent Committee with the Advocates applying for designation. The question is whether an Advocate, who by virtue of his ability and standing at the Bar deserves designation, can be subjected to an interview by the Permanent Committee. When we posed this query to Ms. Indira Jaising, Senior Advocate, she fairly stated that while she argued Indira Jaising-1, she never suggested that there should be a requirement of an interview or interaction with the applicants.