“Designation as a Senior Advocate confers upon such individual a status if not equivalent, but befitting the status of a Judge of that Court.” With this reasoning, the Delhi High Court had upheld Rule 9B of its Senior Advocate Designation Rules, 2024, a position that now stands affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The matter arose from a challenge mounted by Vijai Pratap Singh, a retired judicial officer from the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, who sought eligibility to apply for designation as a Senior Advocate before the Delhi High Court. Rule 9B, however, restricts such applications to judicial officers who have retired from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS). The plea contended that the rule created a “class within class” and suffered from “constitutional infirmity” under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
When the matter came up before a Bench of Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, the petitioner, appearing in person, argued that the restriction was arbitrary. The Bench, however, was unconvinced. CJI Gavai remarked, "Why don’t you apply to the Supreme Court? In Supreme Court, everybody can apply.” The Court dismissed the petition without further elaboration, thereby affirming the High Court’s stance.
In its earlier judgment, the Delhi High Court had underlined that designation as Senior Advocate is not a mechanical exercise but a recognition rooted in familiarity with an individual’s professional conduct, standing, and personality, while stating, “After all, designation as a Senior Advocate by a High Court under the Rules is not merely on the basis of records available but also on the basis of the aforesaid parameters of an individual's personality.” The Court emphasized that conferring such status involves a degree of sensitivity and institutional confidence, which could not reasonably extend to officers who had not served within the Delhi judicial system.
The High Court also held that the differentiation between retired DHJS officers and those from other States was founded on an intelligible differentia, directly linked to the purpose of the rule, and hence was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the Special Leave Petition leaves Rule 9B of the Delhi High Court’s Designation Rules undisturbed. As a result, retired judicial officers from other States remain ineligible to seek designation as Senior Advocates before the Delhi High Court, even though such an application continues to be permissible before the Supreme Court.
Picture Source :
