Section 16 (2) Advocates Act Implicitly Recognizes High Courts' Power To Confer Senior Distinction To Advocates: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act 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.

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, “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.”

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 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 Court also observed that the designation of Senior Advocate 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”, the Court added.

Consequentially, the Court held that the designation of Respondent Nos.5 to 9 as Senior Advocates is valid. The amended Rule 6(9) shall remain in force until fresh rules are framed by the High 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