The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024, which bars retired judges from other states from applying for senior advocate designation in Delhi.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed a plea challenging the rule as arbitrary and discriminatory, affirming that the classification was based on intelligible differentia and did not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), or 21 of the Constitution.

"The designation as a Senior Advocate may only confer certain status coupled with privileges but those alone would not prevent or debar the petitioner from continuing his practise in any of the Courts in any part of this country, including the Supreme Court of India. Ergo, the argument on the touchstone of violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India is unfounded and unmerited. Moreover, there is no indelible or a constitutional right to be designated as a Senior Advocate since it is conferred considering the ability, standing at the Bar and special knowledge or experience in law which is premised on subjective decision predicated on objective consideration of the relevant material before the Permanent Committee and the Full House of the concerned High Court," the Bench observed.

It further added, "Designation as a Senior Advocate in India is a privilege awarded as mark of excellence to Advocates who have distinguished themselves and have made a significant contribution to the development of law and the legal profession. Though this is in context of a practising advocate, yet the general parameters on which even a retired judicial officer would be evaluated, may not be so distinct. The distinction being only on the basis of work and performance as Judicial Officers regularly evaluated by the sitting Judges of the Court and the ACRs/APARs which may be readily available while considering designation as Senior Advocate."

The petitioner, a retired judge from the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, contended that the rule unfairly limited the privilege of applying for senior advocate designation to retired judicial officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) with at least ten years of service. The plea argued that this classification unjustly excluded retired judges from other states who regularly practice before the Delhi High Court.

Rejecting these arguments, the Court held that expecting Delhi High Court judges to confer senior advocate designation upon retired judicial officers from other states was impractical.

The Court emphasized that the designation process was not solely based on an individual's record but also on their personality, professional standing, and reputation within the Delhi legal fraternity. “Designation as a Senior Advocate confers upon an individual a status befitting that of a Judge of that Court. Given the sensitivity and significance of the evaluation process, the distinction between retired judicial officers of DHJS and other states is justified,” the Court stated.

The Division Bench further clarified that the rule does not impede a retired judicial officer’s ability to practice law, including before the Supreme Court, as the designation is a privilege rather than a right. “The conferment of senior advocate designation does not affect an advocate’s right to practice. It merely grants a certain status with privileges, but its absence does not constitute discrimination or create an impediment to legal practice,” the Court observed.

Cause Title: Sh Vijay Pratap Singh v. Delhi High Court [Neutral Citation No. 2025:DHC: 2017-DB]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Utkarsh Kandpal, Bhanu Gupta

Respondent: Advocates Dr. Amit George, Arkaneil Bhaumik, Adhishwar Suri, Suparna Jain, Dushyant Kishan Kaul, Ibansara Syiemlieh, Rupam Jha and Ms. Medhavi Bhatia

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Chief Justice Devendra Kumar UpadhyayaJustice Tushar Rao GedelaDelhi High Court

Sukriti Mishra

    Sukriti Mishra was a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She covered the Supreme Court. She completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022. She had previously worked with another legal news portal, where she covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.