In a significant ruling affirming the discretionary powers of constitutional courts, the Supreme Court has set aside the Orissa High Court’s judgment that invalidated Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocates) Rules, 2019. This provision empowered the full court to suo motu designate advocates as Senior Advocates, independent of any application by the advocate concerned.
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan delivered the judgment while allowing an appeal filed by the Orissa High Court in its administrative capacity, challenging the High Court’s earlier judicial pronouncement from 2021. The Division Bench of the High Court had struck down Rule 6(9) on grounds that it went beyond the parameters laid down in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, where only two routes to designation were identified, a written recommendation by judges or a formal application by the advocate.
The Apex Court, however, disagreed with this interpretation. Relying on its recent three-judge Bench judgment in Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr), the Court reiterated that the full court of a High Court retains the authority to designate an advocate as 'Senior' even in the absence of an application, provided the procedure meets the standards of fairness, transparency, and objectivity.
Citing Jitender @ Kalla, the Court recalled, “The Full Court may consider and confer designation dehors an application in a deserving case.”
In view of this precedent, the Supreme Court held that the suo motu designation of five advocates as Senior Advocates by the Orissa High Court under the 2019 Rules was legally sustainable.
Emphasizing the high bar required for senior designation, the Court noted that post the 1973 amendment to the Advocates Act, 1961, the emphasis shifted from mere experience or years at the Bar to demonstrated “ability, special knowledge, or experience in law.”
The Court added that while Indira Jaising set procedural standards, it did not prohibit suo motu designations if conducted within a constitutional framework. The Bench concluded, “The standards applicable for designating Senior Advocates must remain considerably higher than those for other advocates.”
As a result of this decision, the Supreme Court upheld the designation of Respondents 5 to 9 as Senior Advocates and restored the validity of Rule 6(9) of the 2019 Rules. The Bench clarified that the rule shall continue to operate unless substituted by a fresh set of guidelines enacted by the High Court in compliance with constitutional mandates.
Picture Source :