Senior Advocate Designation - The Legal Chamber

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 Oriss...

The Supreme Court critically examined the procedure for designation of Senior Advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, highlighting issues with interviews, point-based evaluation, and secret ballot voting. It emphasized transparency, objectivity, and uniformity in the designation process and referred the matter to the Chief Justice for reconsideration. Facts Of The Case: The case revolves around the process of designating Senior Advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, as interpreted and modified by the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) and subsequent judgments. The issue arose when concerns were raised about the effectiveness and fairness of the guidelines laid down in *Indira Jaising-1* and *Indira Jaising-2*, particularly afte...

Tag: Senior Advocate Designation

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Senior Advocate Designation: Transparency vs. Discretion

Supreme Court Reforms Senior Advocate Selection: Orders Fresh Rules for Senior Advocate Designation