Can a court hand a lawyer the highest honour in the legal profession without them even applying for it? The Kerala High Court did exactly that recently. It decided on its own motion to confer the prestigious ‘Senior Advocate’ gown on veteran lawyer and senior political leader PS Sreedharan Pillai.
While seventeen other advocates went through a formal application and evaluation process, Pillai was chosen directly by the full bench of judges. Because Pillai has served as a governor and is a prominent political leader, this move has put the spotlight back on how lawyers are elevated to senior status in India.
Who Is PS Sreedharan Pillai?
PS Sreedharan Pillai is widely known both in courtroom corridors and political circles. Before holding constitutional offices, he built a extensive practice as a criminal law specialist in Kerala courts.
Over the years, he has played major roles outside the courtroom as well. Pillai served as the State President of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in Kerala. Later, he was appointed to constitutional posts, serving as the Governor of Mizoram and subsequently as the Governor of Goa.
During a full court meeting held on November 11, the judges of the Kerala High Court decided to recognize his legal career by designating him as a Senior Advocate.
How Did He Receive The Designation?
Usually, lawyers must submit a formal application when a High Court invites expressions of interest for senior designation. Their applications are scrutinized by a committee, assigned points based on reported judgments, integrity, and pro bono work, and then vetted before reaching the Full Court.
In this recent round, seventeen advocates applied and were designated through the regular route. However, Pillai did not submit an application. Instead, the court acted suo motu, which is a Latin legal phrase meaning ‘on its own motion.’
The Kerala High Court exercised this power under Rule 3(2) of its Senior Advocate designation rules. This specific rule allows the Full Court to confer the gown by consensus without an application if it considers the advocate to be a person of exceptional eminence, quality, and specialized legal expertise.
What Does It Mean To Become A Senior Advocate?
In the legal world, becoming a Senior Advocate is a major milestone. It is not merely a fancy title; it completely changes how a lawyer practices law.
- Distinct Court Attire: Senior Advocates wear a distinct gown with a special design, often called the ‘silk’ gown.
- Precedence in Court: They get priority of audience, meaning judges hear them before junior or non-designated advocates.
- No Direct Client Dealing: A Senior Advocate cannot file a ‘vakalatnama’ (the formal document appointing a lawyer) or draft pleadings directly.
- Must Appear With a Junior: They cannot argue in court alone; an instructing advocate or junior lawyer must always be present with them.
What The Law Says: Section 16 of the Advocates Act
The foundational law behind this entire process is the Advocates Act, 1961. Under Section 16 of the Act, there are only two classes of advocates in India: Senior Advocates and other advocates.
Section 16(2) provides that an advocate may be designated as a senior advocate if the Supreme Court or a High Court believes that the lawyer possesses ability, standing at the Bar, or special legal knowledge. The statute leaves the ultimate discretion to the courts.
In 2017, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling in the Indira Jaising case. The goal was to end the old-school ‘secret ballot’ system and introduce transparent, objective criteria across all High Courts. The court set up a point-based system measuring years of practice, reported judgments, publication of books, and an interview.
However, many High Courts preserved an exception within their rules: the suo motu power to invite truly eminent jurists or legal luminaries directly, without requiring them to sit for an interview or submit paperwork.
The Debate Around Suo Motu Designations
The conferment of senior status without an application often sparks discussion in legal circles, especially when the recipient is an active or former political figure.
1. The Need For Objective Criteria
Critics argue that when seventeen candidates go through a rigorous scoring process, exempting someone else creates two parallel standards. They believe the point-based framework should apply universally to maintain fairness and objectivity.
2. The Risk of Perceived Bias
The judiciary relies heavily on public trust and absolute neutrality. When courts grant discretionary privileges to leaders closely tied to ruling or opposition political parties, questions about institutional optics often arise, even if the person possesses genuine legal merit.
3. The Argument For Eminent Recognition
Supporters of the suo motu route point out that some veteran advocates have contributed decades to the bar and earned vast respect. Forcing constitutional veterans or retired legal figures to submit mark sheets and files can seem unnecessary when their track record is already a matter of public record.
Why This Matters For You
For everyday citizens and aspiring law students, the senior designation process is more than courtroom inside baseball. Senior Advocates often represent the public in critical constitutional challenges, human rights petitions, and high-stakes criminal trials.
The rules governing who earns this title directly shape the leadership of the Indian bar. A transparent and merit-based elevation process ensures that only advocates with verified competence, strong ethics, and genuine dedication hold the top tier of legal advocacy.
Key Takeaway
While the Kerala High Court acted within the four corners of its procedural rules to honour PS Sreedharan Pillai, the decision highlights the ongoing tension between discretionary judicial traditions and modern demands for strict, uniform transparency.
Story reported by Barandbench. This article is BareLaw’s independent explanation and analysis.
📲 Get every BareLaw story on Telegram — simple legal news, 5 times a day, free: t.me/barelaw
