Suo Motu Designation of Senior Advocates Intrinsic to Judicial Discretion, Not Fettered by Application Process: Supreme Court Upholds High Courts’ Autonomy

“Designation of Senior Advocate is a recognition, not a reward — it flows from judicial assessment of eminence, not from the number of applications” — In a significant ruling on judicial discretion and the principles of transparency, the Supreme Court of India delivered its judgment, setting aside the Orissa High Court’s order that had quashed Rule 6(9) of the Orissa High Court (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019. The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan upheld the validity of suo motu designation of Senior Advocates by the Full Court of the High Court under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, firmly establishing that such designations remain permissible under law, beyond the application-based process envisaged under the Indira Jaising guidelines.

The Court reinforced the view that the designation of Senior Advocate is not a matter of right, nor is it reducible to an administrative competition, but is a solemn judicial recognition of exceptional legal ability, professional standing, and courtroom excellence.

The High Court of Orissa had, through Rule 6(9) of its 2019 Rules, empowered itself to designate Senior Advocates suo motu, independent of applications or proposals. However, this provision was struck down by the High Court on its judicial side, relying on the Indira Jaising (2017) guidelines, leading to the invalidation of suo motu designations of certain advocates.

The controversy originated from the designation of Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 as Senior Advocates under the suo motu power while the application-based process was underway. The High Court ruled that such suo motu designations undermined transparency and equality. Aggrieved by this, the Orissa High Court on its administrative side challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court.

At the heart of the dispute was the question: Can High Courts designate Senior Advocates suo motu even after the introduction of the structured application-based process post-Indira Jaising?

The Supreme Court answered unequivocally in the affirmative.

Referring to Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Court observed, “The source of power to designate an advocate as Senior Advocate is rooted in judicial assessment under Section 16(2), which authorizes the Supreme Court or a High Court to confer such distinction on the basis of ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge in law.”

“Indira Jaising guidelines never intended to dilute or abrogate the Full Court’s suo motu authority” — Supreme Court

Clarifying the scope of the Indira Jaising guidelines, the Court observed, “The Permanent Committee and Secretariat are supplementary mechanisms intended to bring transparency in application-based designations, not substitutes for the constitutional discretion of the Full Court.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that the guidelines were designed to regulate applications for designation but did not override the inherent power of the Full Court to recognize eminence without the formal application process.

The Court reiterated, “The Full Court retains the discretion to designate advocates suo motu in exceptional cases. This power is intrinsic to the High Court’s constitutional function and is preserved explicitly under the judicial scheme outlined in Indira Jaising – II and subsequent rulings.”

Judicial Clarification through Subsequent Precedents

The Supreme Court reinforced its stance by drawing on the 2023 judgment in Indira Jaising – II and the 2025 ruling in Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi. The Bench noted, “The reconsideration of the point-based interview process in Jitender @ Kalla reflects judicial recognition that no single model can perfectly capture the merit necessary for Senior Advocate designation.”

Recognizing the evolving nature of the designation framework, the Court emphasized the necessity of preserving judicial autonomy, stating,

“The discretion to designate through consensus by the Full Court, particularly in cases of exceptional merit, must be insulated from mechanical application processes.”

The Court particularly approved the 2023 amendment to Rule 6(9), which limited suo motu designations to “exceptional and eminent Advocates” through consensus, aligning it with the constitutional goal of fairness and objectivity.

“Senior Advocate status is a privilege, not a claimable entitlement” — Supreme Court

Affirming fundamental principles, the Supreme Court underscored, “The conferment of Senior Advocate status is not a reward for longevity or popularity. It is a judicial acknowledgment of legal distinction, to be exercised with utmost responsibility, fairness, and impartiality.”

It warned against the dilution of this standard through either arbitrary favoritism or overly rigid criteria, concluding,

“Courts must zealously guard against reducing designation to a mechanical mark-sheet process, while equally avoiding the perils of opacity.”

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court of Orissa, reinstating Rule 6(9) in its amended form. It upheld the validity of suo motu designations under the 2019 Rules and declared the designation of Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 as Senior Advocates valid.

The Court ruled,

“The High Court’s Rule 6(9), as amended, stands valid and operative until substituted or superseded by fresh rules. The designation of Respondent Nos.5 to 9 remains untainted by the High Court’s earlier findings and requires no further scrutiny.”

In this judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the equilibrium between transparency and judicial discretion in the designation of Senior Advocates. The Court held firm to the constitutional autonomy of the judiciary, recognizing the unique role of the Full Court in identifying and honoring legal excellence.

The ruling reinforces, “Designation is an honor rooted in merit, awarded at the Court’s discretion, not a promotional entitlement subject to claims or quotas.”

The judgment also encourages High Courts to frame updated, consultative rules accommodating their unique traditions, while ensuring fairness, transparency, and merit-based selections.

In sum, the Supreme Court preserved the power of the High Courts to confer Senior Advocate designation suo motu, restoring dignity to the institution of judicial recognition and correcting the course where procedural rigidity threatened to overshadow constitutional discretion.

Date of Decision: 14th July 2025