{"id":353442,"date":"2025-07-15T13:30:30","date_gmt":"2025-07-15T08:00:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=353442"},"modified":"2025-07-16T17:27:20","modified_gmt":"2025-07-16T11:57:20","slug":"suo-motu-designation-of-senior-advocate-by-full-court-does-not-warrant-reconsideration-supreme-court-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/15\/suo-motu-designation-of-senior-advocate-by-full-court-does-not-warrant-reconsideration-supreme-court-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Issue of suo motu designation of Senior Advocates by Full Court does not warrant reconsideration: Supreme Court upholds Orissa High Court\u2019s power"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> While considering the petition filed by Orissa High Court\u2019s administrative side, challenging the quashment of Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019<\/a> (2019 Rules) as ultra-vires by the judicial side of the High Court; the Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan*<\/span>, JJ., following and concurring with the verdict laid down by 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Jitender v. State (NCT of Delhi)<\/span>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1099<\/a>, stated that issue of designation of Senior Advocates by the Full Court by exercising its suo motu power does not warrant reconsideration.<\/p>\n

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<\/span>, and must be governed strictly by the principles of fairness, accountability, and institutional integrity.<\/p>\n

Background and Legal Trajectory:<\/h3>\n

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<\/span>, (2017) 9 SCC 766<\/a> (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.<\/p>\n

On 02-08-2021, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of paragraph 24 of the impugned order<\/span>, which had declared Rule 6(9) as ultra vires and not being in consonance with the judgment in Indira Jaising \u20141<\/span> (supra).<\/p>\n

Contentions:<\/h3>\n

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)<\/a> of the Advocates Act, 1961<\/a> as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising \u20141(supra)<\/span>, which was subsequently clarified in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India<\/span>, (2023) 8 SCC 1<\/a> (Indira Jaising-2).<\/p>\n

The petitioner further submitted that amended 2019 Rules<\/span> contemplated the modes of designation of Senior Advocates via- (i)<\/span> a written proposal proposing an Advocate by the Chief Justice\/Judge or submission of written application by the Advocate concerned; and (ii)<\/span> Suo motu designation by the Full Court, which amounts to a \u2018recognition\u2019 of eminence and excellence.<\/p>\n

It was also submitted that the guidelines\/framework laid down in Indira Jaising \u20141 (supra)<\/span> applies only to the first mode<\/span> \u2014 i.e., when designation is sought via application \u2014 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<\/a> of the Advocates Act, 1961<\/a>. The mechanism created by Indira Jaising \u20141 (supra)<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n

Per contra<\/span>, 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)<\/span> judgments, on the ground of promoting transparency, have equated the process of designation to that of a promotion in a company.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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 \u20141(supra)<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Court\u2019s Assessment:<\/h3>\n

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.<\/span><\/p>\n

Court pointed out that the source of the power for Senior Advocate designation is contained in Section 16(2)<\/a> of the Advocates Act, 1961<\/a>. The provision implicitly recognizes the power of a High Court to confer the distinction of Senior Advocate<\/span>, 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<\/a> of the Advocates Act, 1961<\/a>, were challenged in Indira Jaising \u20141(supra)<\/span>, 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<\/span> and laid down specific guidelines and criteria in Paras 73 and 74.<\/p>\n

It was observed that in pursuance with the guidelines in Indira Jaising-1(supra)<\/span>, the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019<\/a> were framed. Under the 2019 Rules there are three recognized methods for initiating the designation process-<\/p>\n