Supreme Court upholds Delhi High Court rule barring retired judges from other states from applying for senior advocate status. CJI tells petitioner: “Why don’t you apply to the Supreme Court… In the Supreme Court, everybody can apply.”
New Delhi: On August 1, the Supreme Court of India has declined to accept a petition that challenged a rule framed by the Delhi High Court which prevents retired judges from other states from applying for the ‘Senior Advocate’ designation in Delhi.
The rule in question—Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024—allows only those retired judges who served in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service for at least 10 years to be considered eligible for being designated as senior advocates in the Delhi High Court.
This effectively bars retired judicial officers from other states from applying for the same designation in the national capital.
The plea was filed by Vijai Pratap Singh, a retired judge from the higher judicial services in Uttar Pradesh. He argued that this specific rule is unfair and discriminatory.
According to him, it violates constitutional principles because it unfairly creates a division among retired judges based on their place of service. He said the rule suffers from a “constitutional infirmity” as it creates a “class within class”.
However, a bench of the Supreme Court headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai and also comprising Justice K Vinod Chandran refused to entertain Singh’s plea.
The court stood by the earlier decision of the Delhi High Court, which had upheld the rule’s validity.
During the hearing, Chief Justice Gavai suggested an alternative to Singh, saying,
“Why don’t you apply to the Supreme Court… In the Supreme Court, everybody can apply.”
This remark implied that the Supreme Court does not impose such restrictions based on the state of retirement and offers equal opportunity to all eligible individuals seeking the senior advocate status.
With this decision, the Supreme Court has effectively reaffirmed the Delhi High Court’s authority to frame and enforce its own rules concerning the designation of senior advocates, even if those rules limit eligibility to retired judges from within the Delhi judicial system.
Understanding Rule 9B of the Delhi High Court’s 2024 Senior Advocate Rules
Rule 9B is a specific clause introduced by the Delhi High Court through its 2024 rules concerning the appointment of senior advocates.
This rule lays down a clear condition: only those judicial officers who have retired from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) and have completed a minimum of 10 years of service are eligible to apply for designation as senior advocates in the Delhi High Court.
This effectively means that retired judges from any other state or judicial service outside Delhi are not allowed to apply for the designation in the Delhi High Court, even if they have served for several years elsewhere or practiced law in Delhi post-retirement.
The logic behind introducing this rule, as explained by the Delhi High Court in a related case, is based on administrative feasibility and record accessibility. Officers who served in the Delhi judicial system have Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) or Performance Appraisal Reports (APARs) that are available to the Delhi High Court judges for review.
These internal records help the court in assessing a candidate’s eligibility, conduct, and merit effectively.
However, for retired judicial officers from other states, such records are not readily available, and the Delhi High Court does not have direct supervisory authority over them.
As a result, the Court maintained that it would be difficult to evaluate such candidates in a fair and informed manner.
When this rule was challenged by a former Uttar Pradesh judge, Vijai Pratap Singh, the Delhi High Court upheld the rule, stating that the classification made under Rule 9B was reasonable and not in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality.
The Court said that this distinction had a clear and logical basis, and the rule served a valid purpose.
It was further emphasized that designation as a senior advocate is not a right, but rather a professional privilege or honour, given to those who meet certain standards of excellence.
Hence, denying such a designation does not amount to a denial of the right to practice law under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
CASE TITLE:
VIJAI PRATAP SINGH Vs DELHI HIGH COURT THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL
SLP(C) No. 15148/2025
Read Order:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Senior Advocate Tag
