'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. Rule 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 through reconsideration of the above judgments, including Jitendra and the Advocates Act,1960, which was amended in 1973, replacing experience and standing at the bar with ability, standing at the bar or special knowledge or experience, the Court emphasised that the standards of designation of senior advocates must be significantly higher that those applicable to other advocates. Ultimately, the Court reaffirmed the validity of suo moto designation by a full court provided such designation adheres to the constitutional principles of fairness, transparency and objectivity.

In light of the decision rendered 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."

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 two sources were recognised by the Supreme Court 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).

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

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.