“Don’t unnecessarily litigate,” Justice PS Narasimha told a lawyer left out of the Allahabad High Court’s 2019 senior advocate designations, as the Supreme Court declined to disturb them and said he may apply afresh.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday, November 6, 2026, dismissed a special leave petition challenging the senior advocate designations conferred by the Allahabad High Court in 2019, clarifying that the petitioner is free to reapply and that any fresh application must be decided under the law now governing designations, including the principles in Jitender @ Kalla v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Vishnu Behari Tiwari v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad].
A bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe heard the petition, filed against a September 2024 judgment of the High Court that had rejected the challenge brought by Advocate Vishnu Behari Tiwari.
How the 2019 list was drawn up
For the 2019 exercise, the Permanent Committee headed by the then Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court resolved that only advocates scoring 45 or more out of 75 points would be eligible for consideration. Of the 78 names sent to the Full Court, 75 were designated. While dismissing the challenge, the High Court also noted that no designations had taken place since 2019.
The High Court held that forwarding only selected applicants to the Full Court was in line with Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017). It accepted that designations should not have been made without interviewing shortlisted candidates, but held that the suo motu power to designate had been preserved in the 2023 Indira Jaising ruling, that only shortlisted candidates could challenge the absence of interviews, and that the interview requirement was discretionary. Since the petitioners had not cleared the cut-off, they could not raise that ground.
The law moved on after the SLP was filed
While issuing notice on the SLP, a bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan had observed that the Allahabad High Court’s Permanent Committee departed from Indira Jaising by reducing the total marks from 100 to 75. Later, in the Jitender @ Kalla case, a bench led by Justice Oka revisited the Indira Jaising framework and discontinued the point-based assessment and interviews before the Permanent Committee. After Justice Oka’s retirement, the matter came before the present bench.
Arguments and the order
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Pranav Sachdeva submitted that his client had not been considered despite 15 years of unblemished, continuous practice before the Allahabad High Court. He contended that the selection committee had not carried out the evaluation for several years, although the Jitender @ Kalla judgment requires at least one designation exercise every calendar year.
Justice Narasimha questioned the need to litigate, orally remarking:
“Apply. Why do you want to litigate? You apply afresh. Don’t unnecessarily litigate.”
The bench then recorded in its order:
“We are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court. We make it clear that the petitioner will be entitled to reapply and upon such application it shall be considered in accordance with the law that governs the subject, including the principle laid down in Jitendra Kalla’s case.”
Why the order matters
The ruling leaves the 75 designations of 2019 undisturbed, even though the scoring model used then has since been discarded. At the same time, by expressly tying any fresh application to the Jitender @ Kalla principles, the Court points aggrieved advocates towards a new round of designation rather than a reopening of past ones, and puts the spotlight on the petitioner’s complaint that the Allahabad High Court has held no designation exercise for years despite the requirement of an annual process.
Case Title: Vishnu Behari Tiwari v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad [SLP(C) Nos. 39561-39562 of 2026, Diary No. 10144 of 2025]
Bench: Justice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: November 6, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Pranav Sachdeva for the petitioner
