New Delhi, Mar 19 (PTI) The Supreme Court administration on Wednesday said there was a need to reconsider the 2017 judgement on the process for conferring senior designations to advocates. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta was presenting the views of the top court's administration before a three judge special bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan and S V N Bhatti. Also Read | 'Kavach 4.0', India's Cutting-Edge Automatic Train Protection, To Equip 10,000 Locomotives in the Next Phase, Says Railway Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw. The bench was hearing a batch of pleas over the reconsideration of the senior designation process as envisaged in two verdicts on the plea of senior advocate Indira Jaising. The first judgement was rendered by a three judge bench headed by former Justice Ranjan Gogoi on October 12, 2017. It had issued a slew of guidelines including setting up of a permanent committee led by the Chief Justice of India to accord senior designation to lawyers. Also Read | Ramadan 2025 Calendar: Sehri Time, Iftar Time for 19th Roza of Ramzan on March 20 in Mumbai, Delhi, Lucknow, Hyderabad, Kolkata and Other Cities of India. Then came the second judgement and now the bench would decide whether or not the previous directions need tweaking. “I have been requested by the Supreme Court to appear for the Supreme Court and suggested that the earlier judgements needed a relook," Mehta said. He said only the court in which an advocate was practising should designate the advocate as senior and “any system where an individual judge recommends a certain lawyer to be designated as a senior should be stopped”. The system of individual members, Mehta said, deciding the basis of marks like a collegium should be disbanded and the decision on senior designations should be a collective one of the Supreme Court or the high court. Using cricket as an analogy, Mehta said a lawyer's performance in court--akin to the field-- should be the criteria and such a decision should be made through secret ballot voting to avoid “manipulation and lobbying”. ”We are all humans and judges are also humans and human tendency is not to displease another person without genuine reason. Transparent marking is only when there is a secret ballot. Nowadays, my experience is that during a full court meeting, so and so receive messages that 'this or that judge has objected to your name'...,” he said. The hearing would continue on March 20. On February 25, the top court sought response from all the high courts and other stakeholders on the issue of reconsideration of the process of the designation of senior advocates. The top court on February 20 said a "serious introspection" was required when it came to designating lawyers as senior advocates and referred the issue to Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna for deciding whether a larger bench should hear the matter. The bench also expressed doubts whether by interviewing a candidate for a few minutes, their personality or suitability could really be tested. (This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)