A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Orissa High Court and Others v. Banshidhar Baug and Others Etc., decided on 14 July 2025, settles a recurrent controversy around suo motu senior designations by High Courts under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019. The Orissa High Court had struck down Rule 6(9) and placed in abeyance a prior notification of suo motu designations. The Supreme Court stayed that order at the SLP stage, took note of the clarifications in Indira Jaising (2023), the subsequent three‑Judge ruling in Jitender @ Kalla (2025), and the Orissa High Court’s later amendment dated 15.12.2023 aligning Rule 6(9) with those clarifications. Affirming that senior designation is a “privilege, not an entitlement,” the Court upheld the High Court’s institutional power to designate suo motu in exceptional cases by Full Court consensus, while insisting on the constitutional values of fairness, transparency, and objectivity. It set aside the Orissa High Court’s judgment, validated the designations notified, and permitted the amended Rule 6(9) to operate until fresh rules are framed, following the pathway indicated in Jitender @ Kalla for statewide rule‑making and the deletion of the earlier 100‑point matrix under Indira Jaising‑1 paragraph 73.7.

Keywords: Section 16(2) Advocates Act; Rule 6(9) Orissa 2019 Rules; suo motu senior designation; Indira Jaising‑1 and ‑2; Jitender @ Kalla; fairness; transparency; objectivity; Full Court consensus.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute stems from the Orissa High Court’s decision on its judicial side to quash Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 as ultra vires, and to invalidate a subsequent invitation for applications and to hold in abeyance a notification which had earlier suo motu designated certain advocates as Senior Advocates. The Supreme Court records that, at the threshold, it stayed paragraph 24 of the impugned order on 02.08.2021 insofar as it had declared Rule 6(9) ultra vires. The petitioners argued before the Supreme Court that Rule 6(9) was consonant with Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the framework created in Indira Jaising (2017) and clarified in Indira Jaising (2023). On the factual canvas, the Orissa High Court had initially invited applications on 22.04.2019 even as five advocates were suo motu designated by Full Court under Rule 6(9), which designations were notified on 19.08.2019; a second notification then invited fresh applications on 04.09.2019, prompting challenge. In the Supreme Court, the respondents emphasised fairness concerns of a “pick and choose” exercise prior to completion of the application process and urged reconsideration of interview‑centric procedures introduced in Indira Jaising‑1. The Supreme Court, however, places the controversy within a larger evolution: the clarificatory Indira Jaising‑2 reiterated that the Full Court’s suo motu power was never taken away; and a three‑Judge Bench in Jitender @ Kalla (13.05.2025) deleted the earlier 100‑point assessment (para 73.7) and called for new rules within four months, while reaffirming that senior designation is conferred by the Court as a distinction grounded in merit, not as a right.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The proceedings are SLP (C) Nos. 11605–11606 of 2021, arising from a common order dated 10.05.2021 of the Orissa High Court, which struck down Rule 6(9) of the 2019 Rules and quashed a notification dated 04.09.2019 inviting applications for senior designation; it also held Notification No. 1378 dated 19.08.2019 in abeyance pending a fresh decision by the Full Court. The 2019 Rules, framed under Section 34(1) read with Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, contemplated three routes: a written proposal by the Chief Justice or a sitting Judge with the concerned advocate’s consent; an application by the advocate; and a suo motu designation by the Full Court if an advocate, by virtue of ability or standing at the Bar, deserved the distinction even without a proposal or application. Under this framework, on 22.04.2019, applications were invited. Before conclusion of that process, five advocates (Respondents 5–9) were suo motu designated on 19.08.2019. A second notification dated 04.09.2019 invited fresh applications. Writ petitions followed, challenging Rule 6(9), the second notification, and the suo motu designations. The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s invalidation of Rule 6(9) on 02.08.2021, and later recorded that the five designees were reconsidered and again designated as Senior Advocates by notification dated 27.04.2022, in compliance with this Court’s directive. Meanwhile, the Orissa High Court amended Rule 6(9) via notification dated 15.12.2023 to expressly require Full Court consensus and to confine suo motu designation to exceptional and eminent advocates, mapping the stance articulated in Indira Jaising‑2.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019—permitting Full Court suo motu designation of an advocate as Senior Advocate without application or proposal—is ultra vires the framework in Indira Jaising‑1 (2017) as read with Indira Jaising‑2 (2023), and inconsistent with Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961. ii. Whether the Orissa High Court could have invalidated suo motu designations made on 19.08.2019 while the initial application‑based process (22.04.2019) remained pending, and whether such interim designations violated the principles of fairness and transparency animating Indira Jaising. iii. Whether post‑Jitender @ Kalla (13.05.2025), which deleted the Indira Jaising‑1 100‑point matrix and emphasised rule‑making within four months, the High Court’s amended Rule 6(9) (15.12.2023) conforms to the binding template emphasising Full Court discretion, consensus for exceptional and eminent advocates, and the constitutional values of objectivity, transparency, and fairness. iv. Whether senior designation is a matter of right or a privilege conferred at the Court’s discretion, and therefore insulated from claims based on seniority, experience, or popularity.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the petitioners submitted that the High Court erred in striking down Rule 6(9) because the power to designate Senior Advocates emanates from Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and has been preserved, not extinguished, by Indira Jaising‑1 and specifically reiterated in Indira Jaising‑2. They argued that the architecture built by Indira Jaising‑1—Permanent Committee, Secretariat, and application‑based process—was additive and procedural, and never intended to dilute the Full Court’s plenary suo motu power; therefore, the guidelines apply primarily where a person applies, not where the Full Court recognises eminence on its own. They emphasised that the impugned judgment pre‑dated the clarifications in Indira Jaising‑2, rendering it per incuriam. They added that the second notification dated 04.09.2019 was quashed without examining its legality, only because it might cause confusion with the first notification, and that, in any case, following this Court’s interim directions, the Respondents 5–9 were reconsidered and designated on 27.04.2022, making further interference unwarranted. The petitioners also invoked the statutory text—“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”—to show that Parliament places decisional primacy in the Court’s opinion, thus legitimising a suo motu path when exceptional merit is evident. These submissions, it was urged, align with Indira Jaising‑2’s statement that Full Courts may continue to exercise suo motu power in the case of exceptional and eminent advocates through consensus.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondents contended that Respondents 5–9 were suo motu designated before the Indira Jaising‑1 process was completed pursuant to the first notification dated 22.04.2019. They described this as a pick and choose approach that disadvantaged applicants awaiting consideration under the application route and, therefore, urged that such interim designations be disapproved. They further argued that although senior designation is an honour grounded in contribution and expertise, the transparency push under the Indira Jaising rulings has effectively transformed the process into an appraisal exercise—advertisement, Permanent Committee review, feedback from the Bar, and interview—potentially undermining the original honorary character of Section 16. As presented, such a scheme creates discomfort for very senior practitioners, including those beyond 65 years, who may be reluctant to submit to publications‑based scoring and interviews. The respondents pointed out that Indira Jaising‑1/‑2 do not clarify whether non‑selected applicants are informed with reasons, while saturation has set in across High Courts with variations in interview outcomes disadvantaging otherwise eminent counsel. On this basis, they sought reconsideration or modification of Indira Jaising’s procedural regime and maintained that Respondents 3 and 6, being later processed under the Rules post‑impugned order, now hold designations that have attained finality, even apart from any abstract debate on suo motu power.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

The central provision is Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, under which “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.” The rule‑making locus is Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowering a High Court to make rules governing practice in the High Court and subordinate courts; Article 145(1)(a) and Article 227(2)(b) are acknowledged as constitutional sources for rules by the Supreme Court and High Courts respectively. In pursuance of Indira Jaising‑1, the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 were framed under Section 34(1) read with Section 16(2); Rule 6(9) initially enabled suo motu Full Court designation even absent an application or proposal. Post Indira Jaising‑2 and Jitender @ Kalla, the Orissa High Court amended Rule 6(9) on 15.12.2023 to require Full Court consensus and to confine suo motu to exceptional and eminent advocates.

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court sets aside the Orissa High Court’s order and restores the architecture that recognises both application‑based and suo motu routes, while insisting on fairness and institutional integrity. The judgment proceeds from the text of Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, reading it as vesting decisional primacy in the opinion of the Supreme Court or High Court—thereby legitimising suo motu designation as a matter of judicial satisfaction about ability, standing, or special knowledge/experience. The Court recounts Indira Jaising‑1’s impetus for transparency, extracts paragraph 73 (including the now‑deleted 100‑point matrix in para 73.7), and notes Indira Jaising‑2’s clarification that Full Courts retain suo motu power for exceptional and eminent advocates through consensus. The Court then adverts to Jitender @ Kalla (13.05.2025), which reevaluated the Indira Jaising regime, concluded that the 100‑point system had not achieved the desired objectives, deleted para 73.7 under the reconsideration window expressly reserved in para 74 of Indira Jaising‑1, and directed all High Courts to frame or amend rules within four months, laying down key guidelines that anchor decision‑making in the Full Court, preserve applications as consent, allow dehors application designation in deserving cases, and proscribe recommendations by individual Judges in view of Section 16(2)’s scheme. Applying those controlling principles, the Court observes that the Orissa High Court’s Rule 6(9)—as amended by notification dated 15.12.2023—faithfully tracks the acceptable contours: suo motu, Full Court consensus, exceptional and eminent advocates only. The Court underscores that the Senior Advocate designation is neither a matter of right nor of seniority or popularity; it is a privilege conferred by the Court upon satisfaction of outstanding professional merit, integrity, and standing, and the process must be transparent and free from favouritism or informal influences. On that basis, the Court sets aside the impugned order, upholds validity of the challenged designations, and allows the amended Rule 6(9) to remain in force until the High Court frames fresh rules consistent with Jitender @ Kalla.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio crystallises around three axes. First, Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 is the source of power. By statutory design, senior designation depends on the Court’s considered opinion about an advocate’s ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law. That legislative structure inherently accommodates suo motu recognition by the Full Court; it neither presupposes nor requires an advocate’s application as the sole gateway. Second, the transparency architecture from Indira Jaising‑1 remains relevant but not immutable; under para 74, the Supreme Court held that additions or deletions may be made as experience accumulates. In Jitender @ Kalla, the Court exercised that reconsideration power, deleting para 73.7 (points‑based assessment and interview), shifting decisional emphasis to the Full Court and consensus, and issuing time‑bound directions for High Courts to reformulate rules within four months. Third, Indira Jaising‑2 confirms that the Full Court’s suo motu power “is not something that is being taken away,” and can continue in cases of exceptional and eminent advocates through consensus. When these strands are applied to the Orissa context, Rule 6(9) as amended on 15.12.2023 is intra vires, because it confines suo motu to a narrow, merit‑anchored class, requires consensus, and thus satisfies fairness and objectivity. Hence, striking down Rule 6(9) as such was unjustified; the earlier impugned designations—reconsidered and again conferred—stand validated; and the High Court’s amended Rule 6(9) remains operative until new rules are framed per Jitender @ Kalla.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court’s reflective observations at paragraph 19 are instructive. Senior designation is a mark of distinction for exceptional acumen and advocacy; it is not a right, nor earned by mere years, fame, or popularity. Courts must resist arbitrary or favour‑based conferment; yet the process must be merit‑based, transparent, and fair, insulated from personal preferences or informal pressures. This reinforces the professional ethics dimension of Section 16—that designation represents institutional recognition with accountability. Further obiter appears through the Court’s faithful adherence to Jitender @ Kalla, treating it as binding guidance on the need to frame proper rules under Article 145(1)(a) and Article 227(2)(b), with the Advocates Act, 1961, Section 34(1) providing the statutory foothold. The Court stresses state‑specific consultations—Advocate General, senior Bar, Bar Associations, and State Bar Council—in drafting rules, encouraging mechanisms to handle repeat applications and cooling‑off periods after rejection. The periodic review clause underscores the system’s evolving character, ensuring that no deserving advocate is left out and no undeserving candidate is designated. The totality of these observations guides future designation exercises irrespective of the immediate dispute and will likely inform how High Courts calibrate their processes beyond the Orissa Rules’ present iteration.

c. GUIDELINES

The operative guidelines derive from the binding framework of Jitender @ Kalla which the Court “respectfully follow[s] and concur[s] with,” and they govern until High Courts frame fresh rules. First, the directions in Indira Jaising‑1 paragraph 73.7—i.e., the 100‑point and interview‑anchored matrix—are not to be implemented, reflecting a systemic judgment that the points‑based assessment has not achieved the intended objectives. Second, all High Courts are to frame or amend rules within four months consonant with the decision, with core guidance that the decision to confer designation shall be of the Full Court; if consensus eludes, decision‑making may proceed by a democratic method of voting, with the choice of secret ballot left to the High Court’s situational judgment. Third, 10 years of practice as a minimum qualification stands undisturbed. Fourth, applications may continue and count as consent, but the Full Court may, in a deserving case, consider and confer designation dehors an application, preserving space for suo motu recognition. Fifth, individual Judges are not to recommend candidates for designation within the Section 16(2) scheme; the decision is that of the Full Court. Sixth, at least one designation exercise should be undertaken every calendar year. Seventh, processes already initiated under Indira Jaising‑1/‑2 shall continue as per those decisions, but no new process or applications should commence until proper rules are framed. Eighth, even this Court must amend its own regime to reflect the new decision; periodic review remains essential to iterative improvement. These guidance points, together with the Orissa amendment dated 15.12.2023 (Full Court consensus; exceptional and eminent), set the operative horizon for designations.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s resolution restores coherence to the designation regime by harmonising Section 16(2)’s discretionary core with the transparency impetus of Indira Jaising and the pragmatic recalibration in Jitender @ Kalla. It clarifies that while democratization of process is laudable, point‑based scoring and interviews are not sacrosanct, and may, in fact, miss the intangible elements of courtroom excellence and professional stature that Section 16(2) entrusts the Full Court to discern. The Orissa experience—applications invited on 22.04.2019, suo motu designations on 19.08.2019, procedural turbulence, and a clarificatory amendment on 15.12.2023—becomes a case study for how High Courts should iterate rules with Full Court leadership, public legitimacy, and fairness safeguards. The Court’s affirmation that senior designation is a privilege, not an entitlement stabilises expectations within the Bar and insulates the process from claims premised only on longevity or reputation. The forward path requires High Courts to complete the four‑month rule‑making (as directed in Jitender @ Kalla), to institutionalise consensus‑seeking with clear documentation, to design notice‑and‑feedback protocols that are proportionate yet dignified for very senior practitioners, and to keep periodic review baked into the system. With the impugned order set aside, the Court validates the re‑designations and allows Rule 6(9) (as amended) to hold the field pending comprehensive rule‑making—an outcome that preserves institutional discretion while embedding constitutional values of fairness, transparency, and objectivity.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766; [2017] 10 SCR 478 (guidelines including para 73 and reconsideration window in para 74).
ii. Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2023) 8 SCC 1; [2023] 5 SCR 434 (clarifying that suo motu Full Court power continues for exceptional and eminent advocates).
iii. Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 INSC 667, Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025 (three‑Judge Bench deleting para 73.7; directions for fresh rules; Full Court centrality).
iv. Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 INSC 249 (Division Bench reference prompting reconsideration).

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Advocates Act, 1961, Section 16(2) (source of designation power; consent; Court’s opinion on ability, standing, or special knowledge/experience).
ii. Advocates Act, 1961, Section 34(1) (High Court rule‑making; conditions for practice).
iii. High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, Rule 6(9) (pre‑amendment and amendment dated 15.12.2023—Full Court suo motu; consensus; exceptional and eminent).
iv. Article 145(1)(a) and Article 227(2)(b) of the Constitution of India (constitutional rule‑making competence of Supreme Court and High Courts).