ORISSA HIGH COURT AND OTHERSversusBANSHIDHAR BAUG AND OTHERS ETC.

                  [2025] 7 S.C.R. 505 : 2025 INSC 839

                    Orissa High Court and Others
                                 v.
                   Banshidhar Baug and Others Etc.
           (Special Leave Petition (C) No(s). 11605-11606 of 2021)
                                  14 July 2025
               [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as regards the designation of Senior Advocates by
       the Full Court by exercising its suo motu power.

                                   Headnotes†
       Advocates Act, 1961 – ss.16(2), 34(1) – High Court of Orissa
       (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 – r.6(9) –
       Designation of Senior Advocates – Suo motu designation of
       Senior Advocates by the Full Court – High Court quashed r.6(9)
       of the Rules whereby notwithstanding the procedure, Full Court
       on its own can designate an Advocate as Senior Advocate
       even without any proposal from Hon’ble Judges or application
       from the Advocate if it forms an opinion that an advocate by
       virtue of his/her ability or standing at the Bar deserves such
       designation, as ultra vires and not being in consonance with
       the judgment in **Indira Jaising-1 – Justification:
       Held: Not justified – Suo motu designations by Full Court is valid,
       provided such designations adhere to the constitutional principles
       of fairness, transparency, and objectivity – Standards for the
       designation of Senior Advocates must be significantly higher than
       those applicable to other advocates – Judgment in ***Jitender @
       Kalla’s case is concurred with and reconsideration of the issue of
       suo motu designations not warranted – Order passed by the High
       Court set aside – Amended r.6(9) to remain in force until fresh rules
       are framed by the High Court – Designation of respondent Nos.5
       to 9 as Senior Advocates held to be valid – Judicial discipline.
       [Paras 17, 18, 20]



* Author
506                                                               [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


       Advocates Act, 1961 – s.16(2) – Designation of a Senior
       Advocate – Observation by this Court:
       Held: Designation of a Senior Advocate is a mark of distinction
       granted by the Court in recognition of exceptional legal acumen
       and advocacy – It is not conferred as a matter of right, nor can
       any advocate claim it merely on basis of seniority, experience, or
       popularity – Designation is conferred at the discretion of the Court,
       upon satisfaction that the advocate possesses outstanding ability,
       integrity, and professional standing – Courts are not expected to
       grant this status arbitrarily or as a matter of favour – Process for
       designation must be merit-based, transparent, fair, and free from
       personal preferences or informal influences – Thus, the conferment
       of Senior Advocate status is a privilege, not an entitlement, and
       must be governed strictly by the principles of fairness, accountability,
       and institutional integrity. [Para 19]

                                 Case Law Cited
       ***Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 INSC 667 :
       Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025 – concurred.
       **Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India [2017] 10 SCR 478 :
       (2017) 9 SCC 766; Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India [2023]
       5 SCR 434 : (2023) 8 SCC 1; Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT
       of Delhi, 2025 INSC 249 – referred to.

                                    List of Acts
       Advocates Act, 1961; High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior
       Advocate) Rules, 2019.

                                List of Keywords
       Indira Jaising -1’s case; Indira Jaising -2’s case; Jitender @
       Kalla’s case Designation as Senior Advocates; Suo motu
       designation by Full Court; Principles of fairness, transparency, and
       objectivity.

                               Case Arising From
       EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition
       (C) No(s). 11605-11606 of 2021
       From the Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2021 of the High
       Court of Orissa at Cuttack in WPC No. 17009 and 17110
       of 2019
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         507

     Orissa High Court and Others v. Banshidhar Baug and Others Etc.


                                    Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Petitioners:
       Atmaram N.s Nadkarni, Sr. Adv., Shovan Mishra, Ms. Bipasa
       Tripathy.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Ms. Uttara Babbar, Sr. Adv., Anirudh Sanganeria, Manan Bansal,
       Ms. Rayana Mukherjee, Sunil Kumar Jain, Ms. Rashika Swarup,
       Kedar Nath Tripathy, Aditya Narayan Tripathy.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                                Judgment

       R. Mahadevan, J.

1.     We have heard the learned counsel appearing for all the parties and
       perused the materials available on record.
2.     These Special Leave Petitions are filed by the High Court of Orissa on
       its administrative side, challenging the common judgment and order
       dated 10.05.20211 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
       on the judicial side2, in W.P.(C) Nos.17009 and 17110 of 2019. By
       the impugned order, the High Court quashed Sub-rule (9) of Rule 6
       of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules,
       20193, on the ground that it is ultra vires and not in consonance with
       the guidelines laid down in paragraphs 73 and 74 of the judgment of
       this Court in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India [(2017) 9 SCC
       766] 4. Further, the High Court also quashed the notification dated
       4th September 2019, issued by it on the administrative side, which
       called for applications from eligible advocates to be considered for
       designation as Senior Advocates under the Rules, 2019. Additionally,
       the High Court directed that Notification No.1378 dated 19.08.2019
       shall remain in abeyance until a fresh decision is taken by the Full
       Court regarding designation of Senior Advocates.



1    For short, “the impugned order”
2    For short, “the High Court”
3    For short, “the Rules, 2019”
4    Hereinafter referred to as “the Indira Jaising - 1”
508                                                               [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                                     Supreme Court Reports


3.     On 02.08.2021, when the special leave petitions were taken up for
       consideration, this Court stayed the operation of paragraph 24 of
       the impugned order, which had declared Rule 6(9) as ultra vires
       and not being in consonance with the judgment in Indira Jaising -1.
4.     According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the High Court
       is not justified in quashing Rule 6(9) of the Rules, 2019 which is in
       consonance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 16(2)
       of the Advocates Act, 1961 as well as the judgment of this Court in
       Indira Jaising -1, which was subsequently clarified in Indira Jaising v.
       Supreme Court of India [(2023) 8 SCC 1] 5.
       4.1. Continuing further, on the issue of whether the powers of the
            Full Court can be subject to guidelines or a framework laid down
            by this Court in matters concerning the designation of Senior
            Advocates, the learned counsel for the petitioners made the
            following submissions:
               (a)     The Rules, 2019 as amended, contemplate the modes of
                       designation i.e.
                       (i) A written proposal proposing an Advocate by the Chief
                       Justice/Judge or submission of written application by the
                       Advocate concerned; and (ii) Suo motu designation by the
                       Full Court, which amounts to a ‘recognition’ of eminence
                       and excellence. It was also submitted that the guidelines/
                       framework laid down in Indira Jaising -1 and clarified in
                       Indira Jaising -2, apply only to the first mode – i.e., when
                       designation is sought via application – not to the suo motu
                       designations made by the Full Court.
               (b)     The entire structure – such as the Secretariat, Permanent
                       Committee, and the application-based process – was
                       created by this Court in Indira Jaising -1. These mechanisms
                       are in addition to, and not in derogation of the powers of
                       the Full Court. It was emphasized that the plenary powers
                       of the Full Court were not curtailed by this Court. Rather,
                       a supplementary mechanism was created for candidates
                       who voluntarily seek designation.
               (c)     It was further reiterated that the source of power of the
                       Full Court for designation of Senior Advocates flows


5    Hereinafter referred to as “the Indira Jaising -2”
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                           509

     Orissa High Court and Others v. Banshidhar Baug and Others Etc.


                  directly from Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961. The
                  mechanism created by Indira Jaising -1 is procedural and
                  applies only to applicants. It cannot be construed to have
                  taken away or diluted the inherent suo motu power of the
                  Full Court to designate advocates.
            (d)   Lastly, it was submitted that the High Court while passing
                  the impugned order, did not have the benefit of the
                  clarification issued by this Court in Indira Jaising -2. As
                  such, the impugned order dated 10.05.2021 is per incuriam.
       4.2. It was also submitted that without going into the legality of the
            second notification dated 04.09.2019, the High Court quashed
            the same as it would cause confusion vis-à-vis the applications
            received pursuant to the notification dated 22.04.2019.
       4.3. With these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners
            prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the High
            Court.
5.     On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 /
       petitioner in W.P.(C) No.17009 of 2019, contended that Respondent
       Nos.5 to 9 in the writ petitions were suo motu designated as Senior
       Advocates before the process of senior designation as directed by
       this Court in Indira Jaising -1 was completed. This pick and choose
       method adopted by the High Court was unfair to advocates, who
       were waiting for their applications to be considered under the first
       notification dated 22.04.2019 and therefore, their senior designation
       ought not to have been accepted. After considering this aspect by
       this Court, Respondent Nos.5 to 9 were asked to go through the
       entire process, and upon completion, they retained their designation
       as Senior Advocates.
       5.1. It was further submitted that this Court in several pronouncements,
            has held that the designation of advocates as Senior Advocates
            is a privilege or honor based on the knowledge and expertise
            contributed by the individual to the legal profession. However, the
            guidelines brought in by the Indira Jaising -1 and 2 judgments,
            on the ground of promoting transparency, have equated the
            process of designation to that of a promotion in a company.
       5.2. The learned counsel further submitted that the process of applying
            pursuant to an advertisement, undergoing consideration before
510                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


            the Permanent Committee, inviting views / suggestions from
            the Bar, and attending an interview dilutes the original process
            of senior designation, wherein, the High Courts had the suo
            motu power to designate an advocate based on their intellect,
            honor, courtroom presentation, and contribution to the legal
            fraternity. This new process, according to the learned counsel,
            undermines the very essence of the honorary position granted
            to a Senior Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961. That
            apart, this process also creates an embarrassing and unwilling
            situation for advocates who have been in practice for over 40
            years or have surpassed the age of 65. Such senior advocates
            may hesitate to go through the elaborate procedure, fearing
            low marks in parameters such as publications and interview
            performance, leading to embarrassment in front of their peers.
       5.3. It was also submitted that Indira Jaising 1 and 2 judgments do
            not deal with the question of whether rejected applicants are
            informed about their non-selection and the reasons for the same.
            Furthermore, the entire process of Senior Advocate designation
            has attained a saturation point in several High Courts. While
            the court’s intention was to democratize the designation
            system, it has not addressed situations, where one candidate
            may perform well in an interview, whereas another equally
            meritorious candidate may not, thereby creating a disparity
            in marks and depriving an eminent counsel of designation.
            None of these concerns have been addressed by this Court in
            the Indira Jaising -1 and 2 judgments. Therefore, the learned
            counsel prayed for reconsideration of these judgments and
            sought appropriate modifications.
       5.4. Finally, the learned counsel submitted that after the passing
            of the order dated 28.06.2021 in SLP (C) No.8346 of 2021
            arising out of SLP (D) No.14137 of 2021, the process was duly
            considered and candidates have been designated as Senior
            Advocates.
6.     It is the contention of the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3
       and 6 that these respondents were initially designated as Senior
       Advocates by the High Court in exercise of its suo motu power under
       Rule 6(9). However, in view of the impugned order, Respondent Nos.3
       and 6 were subjected to the full rigour of the Rules, like all other
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                         511

     Orissa High Court and Others v. Banshidhar Baug and Others Etc.


       applicants. They were thereafter designated by strictly following the
       procedure laid down under the Rules, 2019. It is therefore submitted
       that irrespective of whether the High Court possesses suo motu
       powers of designation, the designation of Respondent Nos.3 and 6
       ought not to be disturbed, as it has attained finality.
       6.1. Without prejudice to the above, it was further submitted that
            the judgments in Indira Jaising -1 and 2 recognize the suo
            motu power of both the High Courts and the Supreme Court
            to designate advocates as Senior Advocates.
       6.2. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the suo motu
            designation of Respondent Nos. 3 and 6 on 19.08.2019 could
            not have been invalidated on the ground that High Court lacks
            suo motu power or that Rule 6(9) ultra vires the decision in
            Indira Jaising -1. Hence, the designation of Respondent Nos.3
            and 6 deserves to be protected by this Court.
7.     In addition, the learned counsel for Respondent No.4 submitted that
       Respondent No.4 along with four other advocates was designated
       as a Senior Advocate by the High Court under Section 16 of the
       Advocates Act, 1961 read with Rule 7(1) of the Rules, 2019. This
       designation was notified vide Notification No.1378 dated 19.08.2019.
       Aggrieved by the said notification, Respondent No.1 and others
       preferred two writ petitions. By the common order dated 10.05.2021,
       which is impugned herein, the High Court struck down Rule 6(9) of
       the Rules, 2019 as ultra vires, and issued a direction to consider the
       cases of Respondent Nos.5 to 9 along with other applicants under
       the first notification dated 22.04.2019. Challenging the said order,
       one Prasanna Kumar Parhi and others preferred SLP No. 8346 of
       2021 (arising from SLP(D)No.14137 of 2021), in which, by order
       dated 28.06.2021, this Court granted an order of interim stay of the
       operation of paragraph 32(ii) of the order dated 10.05.2021, with a
       caveat that the applications in pursuance of the earlier notification
       would be considered first for designation, and once that process was
       concluded, the applications pursuant to the subsequent notification,
       dated 04.09.2019, could be taken up. In light of the said order, the
       case of Respondent No.4 along with other applicants was again
       considered. Respondent No.4 was thereafter designated as a
       Senior Advocate under section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 read
       with Rule 7(1) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior
512                                                          [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


       Advocate) Rules, 2019, vide notification dated 27.04.2022. Therefore,
       the learned counsel submitted that the designation of Respondent
       No.4 warrants no interference.
8.     Upon considering the pleadings and the submissions made by the
       learned counsel appearing for the parties, the primary issue involved
       herein pertains to the designation of Senior Advocates by the Full
       Court by exercising its suo motu power.
9.     The source of the power to designate an advocate as Senior
       Advocate is contained in Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961,
       which reads as under:
            “16. Senior and other advocates:
            …….
            (2) An advocate may, with his consent, be designated as
            senior advocate if the Supreme Court or a High Court is
            of opinion that by virtue of his ability standing at the Bar
            or special knowledge or experience in law he is deserving
            of such distinction.”
       Thus, the above provision implicitly recognizes the power of a High
       Court to confer the distinction of Senior Advocate, subject to its
       opinion that the concerned Advocate, by virtue of his ability, standing
       at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law, is deserving
       of such recognition.
10. Earlier, the non-transparent and arbitrary procedures adopted for
    designating Senior Advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act,
    1961, were challenged in Indira Jaising -1, wherein, this Court upheld
    the validity of the power of High Court to confer Senior Advocate
    designation under Section 16. Nonetheless, the Court expressed regret
    on the subjective and opaque nature of the then-prevailing process,
    and emphasized the need for a transparent, fair and consistent
    system. Accordingly, the Court issued directions for the formation of
    a Permanent Committee for designation of Senior Advocates, and
    laid down specific guidelines and criteria. The relevant paragraphs of
    the said decision are extracted below for better appreciation:
            “73. It is in the above backdrop that we proceed to venture
            into the exercise and lay down the following norms/
            guidelines which henceforth would govern the exercise of
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                              513

   Orissa High Court and Others v. Banshidhar Baug and Others Etc.


           designation of Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court
           and all High Courts in the country. The norms/guidelines,
           in existence, shall be suitably modified so as to be in
           accord with the present.
           73.1. All matters relating to designation of Senior Advocates
           in the Supreme Court of India and in all the High Courts of
           the country shall be dealt with by a Permanent Committee
           to be known as “Committee for Designation of Senior
           Advocates”;
           73.2. The Permanent Committee will be headed by the
           Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India and consist of two
           seniormost Judges of the Supreme Court of India [or High
           Court(s), as may be]; the learned Attorney General for India
           (Advocate General of the State in case of a High Court)
           will be a Member of the Permanent Committee. The above
           four Members of the Permanent Committee will nominate
           another Member of the Bar to be the fifth Member of the
           Permanent Committee;
           73.3. The said Committee shall have a permanent
           Secretariat, the composition of which will be decided by
           the Chief Justice of India or the Chief Justices of the High
           Courts, as may be, in consultation with the other Members
           of the Permanent Committee;
           73.4. All applications including written proposals by the
           Hon’ble Judges will be submitted to the Secretariat. On
           receipt of such applications or proposals from Hon’ble
           Judges, the Secretariat will compile the relevant data and
           information with regard to the reputation, conduct, integrity of
           the advocate(s) concerned including his/her participation in
           pro bono work; reported judgments in which the advocate(s)
           concerned had appeared; the number of such judgments for
           the last five years. The source(s) from which information/
           data will be sought and collected by the Secretariat will be
           as decided by the Permanent Committee;
           73.5. The Secretariat will publish the proposal of
           designation of a particular advocate in the official website
           of the Court concerned inviting the suggestions/ views of
           other stakeholders in the proposed designation;
514                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


       73.6. After the database in terms of the above is compiled
       and all such information as may be specifically directed
       by the Permanent Committee to be obtained in respect
       of any particular candidate is collected, the Secretariat
       shall put up the case before the Permanent Committee
       for scrutiny;
       73.7. The Permanent Committee will examine each case
       in the light of the data provided by the Secretariat of the
       Permanent Committee; interview the advocate concerned;
       and make its overall assessment on the basis of a point-
       based format indicated below:

        Sl.                    Matter                       Points
        No.
         1.   Number of years of practice of the 20 points
              applicant advocate from the date of
              enrolment.
              [10 points for 10-20 years of practise;
              20 points for practise beyond 20 years]
         2.   Judgments (reported and unreported) 40 points
              which indicate the legal formulations
              advanced by the advocate concerned
              in the course of the proceedings of
              the case; pro bono work done by the
              advocate concerned; domain expertise
              of the applicant advocate in various
              branches of law, such as Constitutional
              law, Inter-State Water Disputes, Criminal
              law, Arbitration law, Corporate law,
              Family law, Human Rights, Public
              Interest Litigation, International law, law
              relating to women, etc.
         3.   Publications by the applicant advocate       15 points
         4.   Test of personality and suitability on the   25 points
              basis of interview / interaction

       73.8. All the names that are listed before the Permanent
       Committee/cleared by the Permanent Committee will go
       to the Full Court.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                          515

   Orissa High Court and Others v. Banshidhar Baug and Others Etc.


            73.9. Voting by secret ballot will not normally be resorted
            to by the Full Court except when unavoidable. In the
            event of resort to secret ballot, decisions will be carried
            by a majority of the Judges who have chosen to exercise
            their preference/choice.
            73.10. All cases that have not been favourably considered
            by the Full Court may be reviewed/reconsidered after expiry
            of a period of two years following the manner indicated
            above as if the proposal is being considered afresh;
            73.11. In the event a Senior Advocate is guilty of conduct
            which according to the Full Court disentitles the Senior
            Advocate concerned to continue to be worthy of the
            designation, the Full Court may review its decision to
            designate the person concerned and recall the same.
            74. We are not oblivious of the fact that the guidelines
            enumerated above may not be exhaustive of the matter
            and may require reconsideration by suitable additions/
            deletions in the light of the experience to be gained over
            a period of time. This is a course of action that we leave
            open for consideration by this Court at such point of time
            that the same becomes necessary.”
11. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment, the High Court of Orissa framed
    the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules,
    2019, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 34 (1) read
    with Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Rule 12 repealed all
    earlier rules, guidelines, or instructions related to the designation of
    Senior Advocates. Under the Rules 2019, there are three recognized
    methods for initiating the designation process:
     (i)    A written proposal by the Chief Justice or any sitting Judge of
            the High Court, under Rule 5 (1) (a), to be submitted in Form
            I of Appendix-A, along with the prior written consent of the
            concerned advocate.
     (ii)   An application by the advocate concerned in Form II of
            Appendix-A, as per Rule 5 (2).
     (iii) A suo motu designation by the Full Court, under Rule 6(9),
           if it forms the opinion that an advocate, by virtue of ability
516                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


          or standing at the Bar, deserves such designation – even
          in the absence of a proposal or application.
12. In accordance with the Rules, 2019, the High Court issued a
    notification dated 22.04.2019, inviting applications from eligible
    advocates for consideration. In the meantime, Respondent Nos.5 to
    9 were designated as Senior Advocates by the High Court exercising
    its suo motu power under Rule 6(9), prior to the completion of the
    process initiated by the earlier notification. This designation was
    notified vide Notification No.1378 dated 19.08.2019. Subsequently,
    the Registrar (Judicial) issued a second notification dated 04.09.2019
    inviting fresh applications. Aggrieved by this, Respondent No.1 and
    others filed W.P. Nos. 17009 and 17110 of 2019 before the High
    Court on its judicial side, challenging Rule 6(9), the notification dated
    04.09.2019, and the suo motu designations.
13. The High Court by the impugned order, struck down Rule 6(9) of the
    Rules, 2019 as ultra vires and directed that the cases of Respondent
    Nos.5 to 9 be considered along with other applicants under the first
    notification dated 22.04.2019. Challenging the High Court’s order, SLP
    (C) No. 8346 of 2021 came to be filed and this Court by order dated
    28.06.2021, issued notice and stayed the operation of the impugned
    order, with a direction that applications under the first notification be
    considered first. Upon completion of that process, applications under
    the second notification could be considered.
14. Pursuant to this Court’s order, the cases of Respondent Nos.5 to 9
    were again considered and they were designated as Senior Advocates
    vide Notification dated 27.04.2022. Since their designation was made
    in compliance with this Court’s directive, no further examination of
    the same arises herein.
15. In the meanwhile, further clarification was issued by this Court in
    Indira Jaising -2. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are
    extracted below:
          “9. Vide an elaborate judgment dated 12.10.2017, a three-
          Judge Bench of this Court laid down a series of guidelines
          to bring in greater transparency and objectivity in the
          designation process. This was done while retaining the
          suo motu designation power of the Court. These guidelines
          have been set forth in para 73 of the judgment.”
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                           517

    Orissa High Court and Others v. Banshidhar Baug and Others Etc.


            48. Here, we would like to reiterate the observation made
            in the 2017 Judgment [Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of
            India, (2017) 9 SCC 766 : (2017) 4 SCC (Civ) 575 : (2017)
            2 SCC (L&S) 802, (hereinafter “the 2017 Judgment”)] that
            the power of suo motu designation by the Full Court is
            not something that is being taken away. This power has
            been and can continue to be exercised in the case of
            exceptional and eminent advocates through a consensus
            by the Full Court.”
16. Subsequently, the High Court amended Rule 6(9) vide Notification
    dated 15.12.2023, to align it with the directives issued by this Court.
    The amended Rule reads as follows:
            “6. Procedure for Designation:-
            …
            (9) Notwithstanding the above noted procedure for
            designation of an Advocate as Senior Advocate, the Full
            Court suo motu may designate an exceptional and eminent
            Advocate as Senior Advocate through consensus, if it is
            of the opinion that by virtue of his/her ability or standing
            at the Bar, the said Advocate deserves such designation”.
17. At this juncture, we point out that although the three-Judge Bench
    of this Court in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, laid down
    the guidelines for the designation of Senior Advocates by the High
    Courts and the Supreme Court, the Court explicitly stated that those
    guidelines are not exhaustive and may require reconsideration. The
    need for such reconsideration arose recently before a concurrent
    Bench of this Court.
18. In Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi6, a Division Bench of
    this Court expressed the view that the interview-based process
    for the designation of Senior Advocates should be reconsidered
    by a larger Bench. The court also elaborated on the qualifications
    necessary for designation under Section 16 of the Advocates Act,
    1961. Subsequently, a three-Judge Bench was constituted, and the
    matter was heard in detail and was disposed of, vide judgment dated



6   2025 INSC 249
518                                                            [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                                 Supreme Court Reports


       13.05.2025 in Criminal Appeal No.865 of 20257. Upon thorough
       reconsideration of the above judgments, including Jitender @ Kalla,
       the Court observed that Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961
       was amended in 1973 (effective from 31.01.1974), replacing the
       phrase “experience and standing at the Bar” with “ability, standing
       at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law”. The Court
       emphasized that the standards for the designation of Senior
       Advocates must be significantly higher than those applicable to other
       advocates. Ultimately, the Court reaffirmed the validity of suo motu
       designations by Full Court, provided such designations adhere to
       the constitutional principles of fairness, transparency, and objectivity.
       For better understanding, the relevant paragraphs of the said three-
       Judge Bench judgment are reproduced below:

             “D. Reconsideration in terms of Paragraph 74 of Indira
             Jaising -1 and Paragraph 51 of Indira Jaising -2
             75. We have already held in paragraph 60 that considering
             the object of the exercise undertaken by this Court, the
             directions issued in Indira Jaising-1 and 2 were never
             intended to be final. Indira Jaising-1 specifically records
             need for reconsiderations by suitable additions/deletions
             in the light of the experience to be gained over a period
             of time. Even Indira Jaising-2 reiterates this position and
             holds that the process of improvement is continuous,
             based on our experience. What we have held in earlier
             paragraphs shows that the system of 100 point-based
             assessment has not achieved the desired objectives.
             Moreover, the experience shows that the points-based
             assessment is not flawless. We have realized that with
             experience. Therefore, paragraph 73.7 deserves deletion
             in exercise of powers reserved in paragraph 74 of Indira
             Jaising-1 read with paragraph 51 in Indira Jaising-2. When
             we do this, it will not amount to review or recall of the
             decisions. After finding that the point-based assessment is
             not workable, we will be failing in our duty if we fail to do
             what we are expected to do in the light of paragraph 74
             of Indira Jaising-1.


7   Jitender v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 INSC 667
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            519

   Orissa High Court and Others v. Banshidhar Baug and Others Etc.


           E. Judges Recommending Candidates
           76. On plain reading of Sub-section (2) of Section 16,
           the Legislature never contemplated an Advocate making
           an application seeking designation. The scheme of Sub-
           section (2) of Section 16 indicates that designation has to
           be conferred by the Supreme Court or the High Courts.
           The scheme of Sub-section (2) of Section 16 indicates
           that an individual Judge of the Supreme Court or the
           High Court, as the case may be, cannot recommend any
           Advocate for designation as the decision is a collective
           decision of the Full Court. Even if an Advocate deserving
           of a designation does not apply for designation, on the
           basis of the discussion in the house, the Full Court can
           always recommend his/her designation, subject to his/her
           consent. For that purpose, the recommendation in writing
           of an individual Judge is not warranted.
           …..

           K. Need to frame proper Rules
           83. Even in the absence of a specific provision under
           the Advocates Act, this Court and High Courts, being the
           Constitutional Courts, have a power to frame rules. The
           power of this Court can be traced to Article 145(1)(a).
           The High Courts can exercise power under Article 227(2)
           (b). It is necessary that proper Rules must be framed
           dealing with the entire process of designating Advocates
           as Senior Advocates. The object of the rules must be to
           bring objectivity, transparency and fair play in the entire
           process. The rule making power in this behalf can also be
           traced to Sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Advocates
           Act which reads thus:
                 “Section 34: Power of High Courts to make rules.
                 (1) The High Court may make rules laying down the
                 conditions subject to which an advocate shall be
                 permitted to practise in the High Court and the courts
                 subordinate thereto.”
           84. The grassroots level situation in each High Court differs.
           High Courts have their own traditions. Therefore, it should
520                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


       be best left to the High Courts to frame rules in the light
       of the principles laid down in this decision. While framing
       rules, this Court and the High Courts must undertake a
       detailed process of consultation with the Advocate General,
       senior members of the Bar, office bearers of the Bar
       Associations and the members of the State Bar Council.
       Even the members of the Bar owe a duty to ensure that
       only deserving Advocates get designation, and therefore,
       their suggestions must be given importance in the process
       of framing rules. The Rules must take into consideration
       several contingencies. There are cases where after the
       request for designation is rejected by one High Court, the
       candidate approaches this Court or another High Court.
       The Rules can provide for prohibition on applying for a
       certain period after rejection of earlier application. The
       Rules can provide for the form of application, required
       documents etc.
       …

       M. Need to Periodically Review the Procedure
       86. The view which we have taken will be again subject
       to what is observed in paragraph 74 of the decision in the
       case of Indira Jaising-1 and paragraph 51 of the decision
       in the case of Indira Jaising-2. Looking to the very nature
       of the process of designation, it is very difficult to arrive at
       a perfect system. We learn from our experience and the
       mistakes committed in the past. Therefore, the endeavour
       of all stakeholders should be to keep on improving the
       system, so that we may ensure that not a single deserving
       Advocate is left out of the process of designation and not
       a single undeserving person is designated.

       CONCLUSIONS
       87. We, therefore, pass following orders:
       (i) We direct that the directions contained in paragraph
       73.7 of Indira Jaising-1 as amended by Indira Jaising-2
       shall not be implemented;
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                            521

   Orissa High Court and Others v. Banshidhar Baug and Others Etc.


           (ii) It will be appropriate if all the High Courts frame Rules
           in terms of what is held in this decision within a period
           of 4 months from today by amending or substituting the
           existing Rules. The Rules shall be made keeping in view
           the following guidelines:
           a. The decision to confer designation shall be of the Full
           Court of the High Courts or this Court;
           b. The applications of all candidates found to be eligible by
           the Permanent Secretariat along with relevant documents
           submitted by the applicants shall be placed before the
           Full House. An endeavour can always be made to arrive
           at consensus. However, if a consensus on designation of
           Advocates is not arrived at, the decision-making must be
           by a democratic method of voting. Whether in a given case
           there should be a secret ballot, is a decision which can
           be best left to the High Courts to take a call considering
           facts and circumstances of the given case;
           c. Minimum qualification of 10 years of practice fixed by
           Indira Jaising-1 needs no reconsideration;
           d. The practice of Advocates making applications for
           grant of designation can continue as the act of making
           application can be treated as consent of the Advocates
           concerned for designation. Additionally, the Full Court may
           consider and confer designation dehors an application in
           a deserving case;
           e. In the scheme of Section 16(2), there is no scope
           for individual Judges of this Court or High Courts to
           recommend candidate for designation; and
           f. At least one exercise of designation should be undertaken
           every calendar year.
           (iii) The processes already initiated on the basis of
           decisions of this Court in the case of Indira Jaising-1 and
           Indira Jaising-2 shall continue to be governed by the said
           decisions. However, new process shall not be initiated and
           new applications shall not be considered unless there is a
           proper regime of Rules framed by the High Courts;
522                                                              [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


               (iv) It is obvious that even this Court will have to undertake
               the exercise of amending the Rules/ Guidelines in the light
               of this decision; and
               (v) Every endeavour shall be made to improve the regime/
               system of designation by periodically reviewing the same
               by this Court and the respective High Courts.”
       In light of the foregoing, and as a matter of judicial discipline, we
       respectfully follow and concur with the judgment in Jitender @ Kalla
       (supra), as it squarely applies to the present case. Accordingly, no
       reconsideration of the issue involved herein is warranted.
19. Before parting, we wish to observe that the designation of a Senior
    Advocate is a mark of distinction granted by the Court in recognition
    of exceptional legal acumen and advocacy. It is not conferred as a
    matter of right, nor can any advocate claim it merely on the basis of
    seniority, experience, or popularity. The designation is conferred at the
    discretion of the Court, upon satisfaction that the advocate possesses
    outstanding ability, integrity, and professional standing. Courts are
    not expected to grant this status arbitrarily or as a matter of favour.
    At the same time, the process for designation must be merit-based,
    transparent, fair, and free from personal preferences or informal
    influences. It must, therefore, be reiterated that the conferment of
    Senior Advocate status is a privilege, not an entitlement, and must
    be governed strictly by the principles of fairness, accountability, and
    institutional integrity.
20. In fine, the order passed by the High Court on its judicial side is
    set aside. The designation of Respondent Nos.5 to 9 as Senior
    Advocates is held to be valid. The amended Rule 6(9) shall remain
    in force until fresh rules are framed by the High Court.
21. These Special Leave Petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
    Consequently, miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand closed.

       Result of the case: Special Leave Petitions disposed of.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain