Supreme Court upholds suo motu power for senior advocate designation; sets aside Orissa HC order and validates earlier designations

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard Special Leave Petitions filed by the High Court of Orissa challenging a common writ court order that had quashed Sub‑rule (9) of Rule 6 of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 and set aside notifications calling for senior advocate designations. The petitions raised the question whether the Full Court’s suo motu power to designate Senior Advocates survived the transparency framework and guidelines laid down in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India and subsequent clarifications.

The Court set aside the High Court’s judicial‑side order and held that the suo motu designations in question were valid. It observed that Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 implicitly recognised the power of a High Court to confer the distinction of Senior Advocate and that the transparency and procedural safeguards prescribed in earlier judgments did not oust the Full Court’s power to designate exceptionally eminent advocates by consensus. The Court noted that amendments and further clarifications in subsequent interlocutory and three‑Judge Bench decisions informed the correct scope of the earlier guidelines and that a fresh reconsideration in the present petitions was not warranted. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Before parting, we wish to observe 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. It must, therefore, be 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 The dispute arose after the High Court of Orissa framed the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 in exercise of powers under Section 34(1) read with Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and issued a notification dated 22.04.2019 inviting applications. Before that process concluded, the Full Court suo motu designated certain advocates and notified their designations by Notification No.1378 dated 19.08.2019. A second notification dated 04.09.2019 invited fresh applications. Aggrieved advocates filed writ petitions on the judicial side challenging Rule 6(9), the second notification and the suo motu designations; the High Court quashed Rule 6(9) as ultra vires and directed that the suo motu designees be considered along with other applicants under the first notification.

The High Court of Orissa then approached this Court on its administrative side by filing Special Leave Petitions. This Court earlier stayed part of the impugned order and directed that applications under the initial notification be considered first. Subsequent consideration led to the affected advocates being designated again in compliance with this Court’s direction. While recognising the transparency objectives and the Permanent Committee and Secretariat mechanism envisaged in Indira Jaising (2017) and clarified thereafter, the Supreme Court followed its later three‑Judge Bench rulings including Jitender @ Kalla and related clarifications which emphasised that the Full Court’s suo motu power could continue to be exercised for “exceptional and eminent” advocates through consensus, subject to the principles of fairness and objectivity. The Court therefore set aside the High Court’s judicial‑side order, held that the challenged designations were valid, directed that the High Court’s amended Rule 6(9) (dated 15.12.2023) remain in force until fresh rules were framed, and disposed of the Special Leave Petitions with no costs. Interim directions previously issued and applications already processed were to stand as dealt with in compliance with this Court’s orders.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 839; Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 11605–11606 of 2021 Case Title: Orissa High Court and others v. Banshidhar Baug and Others Etc. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Advocates appearing for the High Court of Orissa (names and designations not specified in the reported judgment) For the Respondent(s): Advocates for respondent‑petitioners (names and designations not specified in the reported judgment)