'High Courts Can Suo Motu Confer Senior Designation' : Supreme Court Upholds Orissa HC's Sr Advocate Designations

The Supreme Court today(July 14) set aside the decision of the Orissa High Court, which struck down Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019. R

ule 6(9) gave suo moto powers to the full court of the High Court to designate an advocate as 'Senior Advocate'. The Court relied upon its recent decision in Jitender @ Kalla v. State (Govt.) of NCT of Delhi & Anr (2025) in the matter of senior advocates' designation to uphold the suo moto designation.

In Jitendra Kalla, the Supreme Court, recognising the suo motu powers of the High Courts, had observed, "the Full Court may consider and confer designation dehors an application in a deserving case."

Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the suo moto designation of five advocates as Senior Advocates, which was under challenge in the present case. The judgment was passed in an appeal filed by the Orissa High Court (on its administrative side) against the 2021 decision delivered by the Orissa High Court itself.

Pronouncing the judgment on the appeal, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed: "After Indira Jaising 1 and 2, this matter was heard by a three-judge bench of this Court and entered its findings...The three-judge bench heard in detail and was disposed of in judgment dated 13.5.2025 in criminal appeal...Upon thorough reconsideration of the above judgments, including Jitender @ Kalla, the Court observed that Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 was amended in 1973 (effective from 31.01.1974), replacing the phrase “experience and standing at the Bar” with “ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law”. The Court emphasized that the standards for the designation of Senior Advocates must be significantly higher than those applicable to other advocates. Ultimately, the Court reaffirmed the validity of suo motu designations by Full Court, provided such designations adhere to the constitutional principles of fairness, transparency, and objectivity."

In light of the forgoing, and as a matter of judicial discipline, we respectfully follow and concur with the judgment in Jitendra as squarely applicable to the present case. Accordingly, no reconsideration of the issue is warranted. We find that the order passed by the High Court on its judicial side is set aside and the designation of Respondents 5 to 9 as senior advocates is held to be valid. The amended Rule 6(9) shall remain in force until fresh rules are framed by high court."

Before parting, the Court observed that the designation of a senior advocate is a mark of distinction granted by the Court in recognition of exceptional legal acumen and advocacy. But it is not conferred as a matter of right, nor can any advocate claim it merely on the basis of seniority, experience or popularity.

"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, andinstitutional integrity.

The judgment authored by Justice R Mahadevan traces the fact that pursuant to Indira Jaising-1, wherein the Court had formed a Permanent Committee for the designation of Senior Advocates and laid down criteria, the high court had formulated the 2019 Rules. Under Rule 6(9), a full court can suo moto designate an Advocate, by virtue of ability or standing at Bar. This was then amended, and it was stated that the full court, suo motu, may designate an exceptional and eminent advocate through consensus if it is of the opinion that by virtue of his/her ability or standing at the Bar, the said advocate deserves such designation.

Background

The 2019 Rules were formulated in the backdrop of the Supreme Court's Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017), which had framed guidelines for the conferment of senior designation.

In the High Court, a division bench comprising Justice CR Dash and Justice Pramath Patnaik had found that Rule 6(9) was not in consonance with the Indira Jaising judgment as the Supreme Court recognised two sources for designation of senior advocates- one is the written proposal by the judges and second is the application by the advocate concerned. There is no third source of picking an advocate by exercise of suo moto powers. 

The decision was pronounced in a writ petition filed by four advocates challenging an August 2019 notification of the Odisha High Court, which had designated five advocates as Senior Advocates by exercising powers under Rule 6(9). 

Subsequently, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of paragraph 24 of the high court's judgment, which declared Rule 6(9) ultra vires. As per the court's order, the five advocates were considered again and they were again designated. However, the larger issue arose which was whether the suo moto powers for designation could be exercised by a full court.

Case Title: ORISSA HIGH COURT AND ORS. v BANSHIDHAR BAUG AND ORS|SLP(C) No. 11605-11606/2021

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 695

Click Here To Read Order

Appearances: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shovan Mishra, AOR Ms. Bipasa Tripathy, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anirudh Sanganeria, AOR Ms. Uttara Babbar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Manan Bansal, AOR Ms. Rayana Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR Ms. Rashika Swarup, Adv. Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, AOR, Mr. Aditya Narayan Tripathy, Adv.