Designation Of Senior Advocate Not A Matter Of Right, Cannot Be Claimed On The Basis Of Seniority Or Popularity: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed 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 Court considered the appointment of Respondents as Senior Advocate by the High Court of Orissa.

A Bench of Justice J.B Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahaevan observed, “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.”

Case Brief

It was the case of the Respondents that in accordance with the Orissa High Court Rules, 2019, the High Court issued a notification 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. Later, the Registrar (Judicial) issued a second notification inviting fresh applications. Aggrieved by this, Respondent No.1 and others filed writ petitions before the High Court on its judicial side, challenging Rule 6(9).

The High Court 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.

Court’s Analysis

While deciding the issue of designation of Senior Advocates by the Full Court by exercising its suo motu power, the Bench referred to section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which 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.

The Court noted that 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 case, however, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the power of High Court to confer Senior Advocate designation under Section 16. It also issued directions for the formation of a Permanent Committee for designation of Senior Advocates, and laid down specific guidelines and criteria.

“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”, the Court said.

Further, the Court emphasised that the process for designation of Senior Advocate 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.

“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”, observed the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the Petition was disposed of.

Cause Title: Orissa High Court & Ors. V. Banshudhar Baug & Ors (Neutral Citation:2025 INSC 839 )

Click here to read/download Judgment