Suo motu Senior Advocate designations by High Court permissible: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday set aside a 2019 ruling of the Orissa High Court which had quashed a rule that empowered the full court to suo motu designate lawyers as Senior Advocates [Orissa High Court v. Banshidhar Baug].

The top court also upheld the designation conferred on five lawyers in 2019 using this suo motu method.

A Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan opined that the top court had already clarified the issue in Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi, passed in May this year.

"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," the Bench said.

It, therefore, upheld Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, which empowered the full court to suo motu confer the senior gown on lawyers, sans any written application by interested lawyers or any referral by a judge.

The suo motu method had been invoked in 2019 by the full court of the Orissa High Court to confer the senior gown on five lawyers. This decision was challenged before the Orissa High Court on the judicial side by four other lawyers who had applied for the senior gown.

In 2019, the High Court quashed Rule6 (9), holding that the Supreme Court, in the Indira Jaising case, had revised the system of senior designations to provide for only two methods of conferring the senior gown.

The High Court's May 10, 2021, verdict said,

"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, it decided not to revoke the senior advocate designation already conferred on the five lawyers, observing:

"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."

It proceeded to clarify that their designations would continue to remain in force while the full court deliberates on the applications sent by lawyers (including these five lawyers) for the senior advocate designation.

The May 2021 verdict of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court by the High Court's administrative side.

The top court today disposed of this appeal after clarifying that the Rule 6 (9) shall remain in force until the High Court decides to notify new rules. It added that the senior designations conferred in 2019 on the five lawyers shall also remain intact.