Top Court Upholds Orissa High Court’s Power to Designate Senior Advocates

The Supreme Court in Orissa High Court & Others v. Banshidhar Baug & Others upheld the validity of the High Court's power to designate advocates as Senior Advocates suo motu even without an application.

The case arose when the Orissa High Court’s judicial wing struck down Rule 6(9) of its 2019 Senior Advocate Designation Rules, calling it unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s 2017 Indira Jaising guidelines promoting transparency in such appointments.

What Court Said?

The Supreme Court, however, reversed this decision, reaffirming that Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers High Courts to confer senior status based on a lawyer's merit, with or without application.

It emphasized that the suo motu power used to designate advocates based on exceptional ability or standing is not barred by the Indira Jaising rulings.

The Court noted that the 2023 clarification (Indira Jaising II) and the May 2025 ruling in Jitender @ Kalla further endorsed that the suo motu mechanism remains valid if done transparently.

The Court also accepted amendments made by the Orissa High Court in December 2023 to align Rule 6(9) with Supreme Court directions. The amended rule allows the Full Court to designate advocates suo motu by consensus, preserving merit-based recognition. The designations of Respondents 5 to 9, previously invalidated, were upheld as valid.

Disclaimer: This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.