Supreme Court: While considering the petition filed by Orissa High Court’s administrative side, challenging the quashment of Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 (2019 Rules) as ultra-vires by the judicial side of the High Court; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*, JJ., following and concurring with the verdict laid down by 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Jitender v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1099, stated that issue of designation of Senior Advocates by the Full Court by exercising its suo motu power does not warrant reconsideration.
Taking note of amended Rule 6(9) of the 2019 Rules, which contemplates designation of Senior Advocates by Full Court under the suo-motu power, the Court reiterated that the conferment of Senior Advocate status is a privilege, not an entitlement, and must be governed strictly by the principles of fairness, accountability, and institutional integrity.
Background and Legal Trajectory:
On 10-5-2021, the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, declared Rule 6(9) of the 2019 as ultra-vires and not being in consonance with the guidelines laid down in paragraphs 73 and 74 of the judgment of Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766 (Indira Jaising-1). The High Court further quashed the notification dated 4-9-2019, issued by it on the administrative side, which called for applications from eligible advocates to be considered for designation as Senior Advocates under the 2019 Rules. Additionally, the High Court directed that Notification No.1378 dated 19-08-2019 shall remain in abeyance until a fresh decision is taken by the Full Court regarding designation of Senior Advocates.
On 02-08-2021, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of paragraph 24 of the impugned order, which had declared Rule 6(9) as ultra vires and not being in consonance with the judgment in Indira Jaising —1 (supra).
Contentions:
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the High Court was not justified in quashing Rule 6(9) of the 2019 Rules which was in consonance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising —1(supra), which was subsequently clarified in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2023) 8 SCC 1 (Indira Jaising-2).
The petitioner further submitted that amended 2019 Rules contemplated the modes of designation of Senior Advocates via- (i) a written proposal proposing an Advocate by the Chief Justice/Judge or submission of written application by the Advocate concerned; and (ii) Suo motu designation by the Full Court, which amounts to a ‘recognition’ of eminence and excellence.
It was also submitted that the guidelines/framework laid down in Indira Jaising —1 (supra) applies only to the first mode — i.e., when designation is sought via application — not to the suo motu designations made by the Full Court. The petitioners further contended that the source of power of the Full Court for designation of Senior Advocates flows directly from Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The mechanism created by Indira Jaising —1 (supra) is procedural and applies only to applicants. It cannot be construed to have taken away or diluted the inherent suo motu power of the Full Court to designate advocates.
Per contra, the respondents argued that the Supreme Court in several judgments, had held that the designation of advocates as Senior Advocates is a privilege or honour based on the knowledge and expertise contributed by the individual to the legal profession. However, the guidelines brought in by the Indira Jaising -1 and 2 (Supra) judgments, on the ground of promoting transparency, have equated the process of designation to that of a promotion in a company.
The respondents further argued that the process of applying pursuant to an advertisement, undergoing consideration before the Permanent Committee, inviting views / suggestions from the Bar, and attending an interview dilutes the original process of senior designation, wherein, the High Courts had the suo motu power to designate an advocate based on their intellect, honour, courtroom presentation, and contribution to the legal fraternity.
Counsel for Respondents 3 and 6 submitted that they were initially designated as Senior Advocates by the High Court in exercise of its suo motu power under Rule 6(9). However, in view of the impugned order, they were subjected to the full rigour of the Rules, like all other applicants. They were thereafter designated by strictly following the procedure laid down under the 2019 Rules. It was submitted that the suo motu designation of Respondents 3 and 6 on 19-08-2019 could not have been invalidated on the ground that High Court lacks suo motu power or that Rule 6(9) ultra vires the decision in Indira Jaising —1(supra).
Court’s Assessment:
Upon perusing the facts and contentions raised by the parties, the Court had to consider the issue pertaining to the designation of Senior Advocates by the Full Court by exercising its suo motu power.
Court pointed out that the source of the power for Senior Advocate designation is contained in Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The provision implicitly recognizes the power of a High Court to confer the distinction of Senior Advocate, subject to its opinion that the concerned Advocate, by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law, is deserving of such recognition. The Court further pointed out that the non-transparent and arbitrary procedures adopted for designating Senior Advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, were challenged in Indira Jaising —1(supra), wherein, the Court upheld the validity of the power of High Court to confer Senior Advocate designation under Section 16. Therefore, the Court issued directions for the formation of a Permanent Committee for designation of Senior Advocates and laid down specific guidelines and criteria in Paras 73 and 74.
It was observed that in pursuance with the guidelines in Indira Jaising-1(supra), the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 were framed. Under the 2019 Rules there are three recognized methods for initiating the designation process-
- written proposal by the Chief Justice or any sitting Judge of the High Court;
- application by the advocate concerned and
-
suo motu designation by the Full Court, under Rule 6(9).
Furthermore, in accordance with the afore-stated Rules, a notification dated 22-04-2019 was issued inviting applications from eligible advocates for consideration. Five Respondents were designated as Senior Advocates by the High Court exercising its suo motu power under Rule 6(9). Thereafter, a second notification dated 04-09-2019 was issued inviting fresh applications, which was subsequently set aside by the impugned order. The Court further noted that in Indira Jaising-2 (supra) the Supreme Court clarified its guidelines laid down in Indira Jaising-1(supra).
Pursuant to the clarification of the guidelines, Orissa High Court amended Rule 6(9), which stated that, “Notwithstanding (…) the Full Court suo motu may designate an exceptional and eminent Advocate as Senior Advocate through consensus, if it is of the opinion that by virtue of his/her ability or standing at the Bar, the said Advocate deserves such designation”.
Examining the core issue, the Court took note of Jitender v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 377, where Division Bench of the Court expressed the view that the interview-based process for the designation of Senior Advocates should be reconsidered by a larger Bench. Consequently, a 3-Judge Bench was constituted in Jitender v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1099, wherein opined that Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 was amended in 1973, replacing the phrase “experience and standing at the Bar” with “ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law”. The Court therein had emphasized that the standards for the designation of Senior Advocates must be significantly higher than those applicable to other advocates. Ultimately, the Court therein had reaffirmed the validity of suo motu designations by Full Court, provided such designations adhere to the constitutional principles of fairness, transparency, and objectivity.
Therefore, the Division Bench in the instant case, followed and concurred with the decision of the 3-Judge Bench in Jitender (supra), and stated no reconsideration of the issue of suo-motu designation is required.
In its concluding remarks, the Court observed that the designation of a Senior Advocate is a mark of distinction granted by the Court in recognition of exceptional legal acumen and advocacy. It is not conferred as a matter of right, nor can any advocate claim it merely on the basis of seniority, experience, or popularity. The designation is conferred at the discretion of the Court, upon satisfaction that the advocate possesses outstanding ability, integrity, and professional standing. Courts are not expected to grant this status arbitrarily or as a matter of favour. At the same time, the process for designation must be merit-based, transparent, fair, and free from personal preferences or informal influences.
Decision:
With the afore-stated assessment, the Court thus set aside the impugned order issued by the judicial side of the High Court and stated that amended Rule 6(9) of the 2019 Rules shall remain in force until fresh rules are framed by the High Court. The Court further upheld the validity of the suo motu designation of 5 Respondents.
[Orissa High Court v. Banshidhar Baug, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1413, decided on 14-7-2025]
*Judgment by Justice R. Mahadevan
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Ms. Bipasa Tripathy, Adv. Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR Mr. Bikram Singh Patel, Adv. Mr. Manan Bansal, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR Ms. Rashika Swarup, Adv. Mr. Naman Jain, Adv. Mr. Akshat Jain, Adv. Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR Mr. Aditya Narayan Tripathy, Adv.
