The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, which permits the Full Court to designate advocates as Senior Advocates suo motu based on exceptional merit. The Court clarified that such designations must adhere to the principles of fairness, transparency, and objectivity, as outlined in Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the guidelines in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India. The judgment emphasized that the suo motu power of the Full Court is supplementary to the application-based process and does not undermine the statutory framework. The amended Rule 6(9) was upheld, ensuring alignment with constitutional principles.
Facts Of The Case:
The case arose from a challenge to the High Court of Orissa’s suo motu designation of certain advocates as Senior Advocates under Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019. The High Court, on its judicial side, had struck down Rule 6(9) as ultra vires, holding that it conflicted with the transparency guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017). The High Court also quashed a subsequent notification inviting fresh applications for Senior Advocate designation, directing that earlier applications be processed first. Aggrieved by this decision, the Orissa High Court (on its administrative side) filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) before the Supreme Court, arguing that Rule 6(9) was valid and aligned with Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which empowers High Courts to designate Senior Advocates based on merit. The respondents (original writ petitioners) contended that suo motu designations bypassed the structured process mandated by Indira Jaising, leading to arbitrariness. The Supreme Court, after examining the issue, upheld the validity of Rule 6(9), holding that suo motu designations by the Full Court were permissible if based on exceptional merit and consensus. It emphasized that such powers were supplementary to, and not in conflict with, the Indira Jaising guidelines. The Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, validating the designations made under Rule 6(9) and allowing the amended rule to remain in force.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case begins with the Orissa High Court, on its judicial side, quashing Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, and the subsequent notification dated 04.09.2019, in W.P.(C) Nos. 17009 and 17110 of 2019. The High Court held that Rule 6(9), which allowed suo motu designation of Senior Advocates by the Full Court, was ultra vires the guidelines laid down in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017). It directed that the designation process be conducted only through the application-based system prescribed in the judgment.Aggrieved by this decision, the Orissa High Court (on its administrative side) filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) Nos. 11605–11606 of 2021 before the Supreme Court, challenging the quashing of Rule 6(9). The Supreme Court, in an interim order dated 02.08.2021, stayed the operation of the High Court’s judgment. Later, on 28.06.2021, in a related SLP (C) No. 8346 of 2021, the Court directed that pending applications under the first notification (22.04.2019) be processed first, followed by those under the second notification (04.09.2019).After considering submissions and subsequent developments, including the clarification in *Indira Jaising -2 (2023)* and the amendment to Rule 6(9) (15.12.2023), the Supreme Court, in its final judgment dated 14.07.2025, set aside the High Court’s decision. It upheld the validity of suo motu designations under Rule 6(9), aligning it with Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and affirmed the designations already made. The Court emphasized that the Full Court’s suo motu power was constitutional and did not undermine transparency. The SLPs were disposed of, leaving the amended rule in force.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Civil Dispute: No Cheating Without Criminal Intent
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court made several key observations in its judgment. It reaffirmed that Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers High Courts to designate Senior Advocates based on merit, and this power includes suo motu designations by the Full Court. The Court clarified that the guidelines in Indira Jaising (2017) were not exhaustive and did not eliminate the Full Court’s inherent authority to recognize exceptional advocates without a formal application.The Bench emphasized that transparency and fairness must govern the designation process, whether through applications or suo motu recognition. It noted that Rule 6(9) of the Orissa High Court Rules, 2019 (as amended in 2023) aligned with constitutional principles, as it required consensus-based decisions for exceptional and eminent advocates. The Court also observed that the point-based assessment system (introduced in Indira Jaising) had practical limitations and should not be rigidly enforced in all cases.Additionally, the judgment highlighted that designation as a Senior Advocate is a privilege, not a right, and must be granted judiciously to maintain the dignity of the Bar. The Court directed High Courts to periodically review their designation processes to ensure objectivity while preserving judicial discretion. Ultimately, it upheld the validity of the Orissa High Court’s suo motu designations, setting aside the impugned judgment for failing to recognize the Full Court’s constitutional authority in this domain.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court, in its final judgment, allowed the Special Leave Petitions and set aside the impugned order of the Orissa High Court that had struck down Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019. The Court upheld the constitutional validity of suo motu designation by the Full Court under the amended Rule 6(9), holding that such power is inherent in Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and does not conflict with the principles laid down in Indira Jaising. The Bench validated the existing designations of Respondent Nos. 5 to 9 as Senior Advocates, finding them to be in compliance with due process. The judgment reaffirmed the dual mechanism for designation – through both the application process and the Full Court’s suo motu recognition – while emphasizing that all such decisions must be based on objective assessment of merit, standing at the Bar, and exceptional legal acumen. The Court directed that the amended Rule 6(9) shall remain operative until fresh rules are framed, and disposed of the petitions with no order as to costs, thereby conclusively settling the legal position on the High Court’s authority in designating Senior Advocates.
Case Details:
Case Title:Orissa High Court & Others vs. Banshidhar Baug & Others Etc. Citation:2025 INSC 839 Appeal No.:Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 11605–11606 of 2021 Date of Judgment:July 14, 2025 Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala & Justice R. Mahadevan
Download The Judgement Here