Chandigarh: Raising serious questions over transparency, fairness, and diversity in the designation of senior advocates by the Punjab and Haryana high court, a petition has been filed before the Supreme Court.The petition, filed by advocate Satish Chaudhary, has questioned the process adopted by the high court in its Oct 2025 list of newly designated senior advocates.The petition, scheduled for a hearing before the apex court on April 20, alleges the high court’s selection process violated constitutional guarantees of equality and ignored binding judicial precedents, particularly the landmark rulings in Indira Jaising versus Supreme Court of India, which established structured guidelines to ensure objectivity and inclusivity.Chaudhary, who has been practising for over three decades since his enrolment in 1992, claims he was unfairly excluded despite meeting key eligibility criteria. According to the petition, he scored 50 out of 100 in the official evaluation, a score higher than several candidates who were ultimately designated.The petition mentions candidates with scores as low as 37, 38, 42, and 46 were included in the final list, while Chaudhary’s name was not even placed before the full court for consideration. This, he argues, amounts to arbitrary exclusion and violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.A major contention is the alleged lack of transparency. The petitioner asserts that no reasons were communicated for his rejection, and the marking system was applied inconsistently.Identifying himself as a first-generation lawyer from a socially and economically marginalised Muslim community from Yamunanagar, Haryana, Chaudhary submitted that the SC’s 2023 ruling in the Indira Jaising case had explicitly recorded the importance of diversity, particularly encouraging the inclusion of first-generation lawyers and underrepresented groups.The petition further says despite providing details of his background and pro bono work, factors specifically sought in the application process, no weightage was given to these aspects. This, he contends, defeats the very purpose of the diversity principle emphasised by the apex court.The petitioner has sought directions to quash the Oct 2025 notification and a direction to reconsider his candidature before the full court meeting.The petition also mentions that the state bar council of Punjab and Haryana had passed a resolution on Oct 23, 2025, seeking urgent clarification from the high court on its evaluation criteria and whether the process was in consonance with Supreme Court guidelines.According to the plea, the state bar council had passed the resolution after receiving several complaints from members of the legal fraternity and advocates practising before the HC as well as in the district courts, alleging that proper procedure was not followed before finalising the list of senior advocates by the HC administration.In Oct 2025, the high court administration designated 76 lawyers as senior advocates — a designation conferred on advocates possessing “ability, standing at the Bar, or specialised knowledge or experience in law”. The list included five women. These designated senior advocates enjoy certain courtroom privileges, professional standing, and are regarded as markers of distinction and ethical responsibility.
