Today, On 14th July, The Supreme Court has ruled that High Courts have the authority to suo motu designate lawyers as Senior Advocates, setting aside the Orissa High Court’s 2019 decision and upholding the designations of five lawyers made through this process.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court set-aside a 2019 decision by the Orissa High Court that had cancelled a rule allowing the full court to designate lawyers as Senior Advocates on its own initiative.
The Supreme Court also upheld the designations given to five lawyers in 2019 through this method.
A Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan noted that the Supreme Court had previously addressed this issue in the case of Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi, decided in May of this year.
The Bench stated,
“Ultimately, (in Jitender Kalla case) the Court reaffirmed the validity of suo motu designation by a full court provided such designation adheres to the constitutional principles of fairness, transparency and objectivity,”
As a result, the court upheld Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, which granted the full court the authority to confer the senior title on lawyers without requiring a written application from the lawyers or a referral from a judge.
This suo motu process was used in 2019 to designate five lawyers as Senior Advocates, a decision that was later contested by four other lawyers who had applied for the title.
Also Read: Behind the Gown: The Rigorous Process of Senior Advocate Designation
In its 2019 ruling, the High Court cancelled Rule 6(9), asserting that the Supreme Court, in the Indira Jaising case, had limited the methods for designating Senior Advocates to only two: written proposals from judges or applications from the advocates themselves.
The High Court’s verdict on May 10, 2021, stated,
“The Supreme Court … has recognized two sources for drawing advocates for being designated as ‘Senior Advocate’. One is written proposal by the Hon’ble Judges and second source is the application by the advocate concerned. There is no third source of picking an advocate by exercise of suo motu power.”
However, the High Court chose not to revoke the Senior Advocate designations already granted to the five lawyers, acknowledging,
“We have no doubt in our mind that Opposite Party Nos.5 to 9 (the designated lawyers) deserve to be designated as ‘Senior Advocates’ and in the process, they shall be designated as ‘Senior Advocates.’…we do not want to disgrace them at present by withdrawing the designation, as there is no fault on their part in the entire exercise.”
The court clarified that their designations would remain effective while the full court reviewed applications from lawyers for the Senior Advocate title, including those from the five designated lawyers.
Also Read: Supreme Court Petition Challenges Delhi High Court’s Senior Advocate Designation Process
The May 2021 ruling from the High Court was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court by the High Court’s administrative side.
The Supreme Court resolved this appeal on Monday, stating that Rule 6(9) would remain effective until the High Court introduces new regulations, and confirmed that the Senior Advocate designations granted in 2019 would also stay in place.
Case Title: Orissa High Court v. Banshidhar Baug