Designation as a Senior Advocate is a privilege awarded as mark of excellence: Delhi HC rejects petition against Senior Advocate Rule, Read Judgment

Recently, the Delhi High Court addressed a challenge to Rule 9B of the Delhi High Court's Senior Advocate Designation Rules, 2024, which restricts eligibility for senior advocate designation to retired judicial officers from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS). The petitioner, a retired judicial officer with 36 years of experience, challenged the rule’s exclusion of judicial officers from other states. The Court examined the history and rationale behind the designation of Senior Advocates and carefully evaluated whether the restriction imposed by Rule 9B was constitutionally valid.

The present writ petition sought to quash Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024, under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing it is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21. The petitioner, a retired judicial officer with 36 years of service in the Uttar Pradesh Judiciary, including 16 years in the Higher Judicial Service (HJS), later served as a Judicial Member of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and as a Technical Member of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) before retiring in 2022. Rule 9B was added through Notification No.18/Rules/DHC on 14.03.2024, amending the High Court Rules & Orders related to senior advocate designation.

Contentions of the Petitioner:

The petitioner argued that Rule 9B of the Delhi High Court Senior Advocate Designation Rules, 2024, is discriminatory, as it limits eligibility for senior advocate designation to retired judicial officers from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) with 10 years of service. He contended that this rule unjustly excludes him, despite his 36 years of judicial service, including 16 years in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (HJS). The petitioner claimed the rule violates his constitutional rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21, and argued that his service in the NCLT and NCLAT should be treated as equivalent to DHJS service.

The respondent defended Rule 9B, asserting it is reasonable to restrict eligibility to DHJS retirees. The rationale is that these officers have their service reports and performance appraisals readily available for assessment, making it easier to evaluate their suitability for senior advocate designation. For officers from other states, such assessments are difficult, as their service records are not accessible to Delhi High Court judges. The respondent cited a Rules Committee meeting where this rationale was discussed and upheld.

The Court addressed the petitioner’s challenge to Rule 9B of the 2024 Rules, which restricts Senior Advocate eligibility to retired judicial officers from Delhi’s Higher Judicial Service (DHJS). The petitioner claimed this violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) by excluding retired judicial officers from other states. The Court clarified that the burden to prove unconstitutionality lies with the petitioner.

The Court referred to the historical development of Senior Advocates, citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India (2017), quoting Justice Ranjan Gogoi's observation on the origins of the designation: “Before embarking upon what has been indicated above, it is necessary to go back into history and trace the origins of what today has come to be recognised as a special class of advocates, namely, Senior Advocates.” It also cited the critique of the Queen's Counsel’s selection process in the UK, quoting a report: “The system is secretive and, so far as we can tell, lacks objective standards.”

The Court emphasized that the Senior Advocate designation in India, introduced under the Advocates Act, 1961, is based on ability, standing at the Bar, and special legal knowledge or experience. It stated that “designation as a Senior Advocate in India is a privilege awarded as mark of excellence to Advocates who have distinguished themselves and have made a significant contribution to the development of law and the legal profession”.

Regarding Rule 9B, the Court acknowledged that it specifically applies to retired DHJS judicial officers, whose performance is assessed by Delhi High Court judges, unlike those from other states. The Court found no constitutional violation, emphasizing that the non-conferment of Senior Advocate status does not infringe on the right to practice law.

The Court dismissed the petitioner’s reliance on previous judgments, including Dr. Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goel & Ors. (2025) and Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978), stating they were not applicable to the case. It also rejected arguments based on the All-India Judges' Association case, noting the proposed framework for an All-India Judicial Service had not been implemented.

The petition was dismissed for lacking merit, with no order as to costs. The Minutes of the Meeting of the Rules Committee held on 27.02.2025, presented by the respondent's counsel, were taken on record.

Picture Source :