Case Law
Subject : Constitutional Law - Administrative Law
New Delhi, March 27, 2025 – The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024, affirming that the rule, which provides a distinct pathway for retired Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) officers to be designated as Senior Advocates, is not discriminatory or violative of constitutional rights.
The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising
Chief Justice and Justice
Tushar Rao Gedela
, came in response to a petition filed by
Shri
Shri
Appearing in person, Shri
Representing the Delhi High Court, Dr. Amit George, argued that Rule 9B is justified due to the unique position of DHJS officers. He presented minutes from the Rules Committee meeting, which highlighted that the High Court has direct access to the Service Reports, ACRs/APARs, and performance appraisals of DHJS officers, making it easier to assess their suitability for Senior Advocate designation. The Committee reasoned that evaluating judicial officers from other states would be significantly more challenging due to the lack of readily available performance records and appraisals within the Delhi High Court system.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela , writing the judgment, delved into the history of Senior Advocates, referencing Indira Jaising vs. Supreme Court of India to underscore that designation is a recognition of ability, standing, and expertise, not an inherent right.
The Court emphasized that the Rules Committee’s rationale for Rule 9B was based on "intelligible differentia" – a permissible ground for classification under Article 14. The judgment highlighted three key points from the Rules Committee's deliberations:
> “(i) the work and performance of such retired judicial officers of the DHJS are regularly assessed by the Judges of the Delhi High Court; (ii) the appraisal reports and ACRs of such retired officers are easily and readily available with the High Court for the Permanent Committee to examine and select the eligible retired officers for conferment of designation as Senior Advocates; and (iii) the Judges of this Court will not have any record or an opportunity to appraise the work and performance of the retired judicial officers of States other than Delhi nor would their records be available on the administrative side.”
The Court reasoned that evaluating judicial officers from other states would be "onerous" and "well nigh impossible" due to the lack of access to their service records and appraisals. It cited State of Uttarakhand vs. Sudhir Budakoti & Ors. and Union of India & Ors. vs. Nitdip Textile Processors Private Limited & Anr. to reiterate the principles of intelligible differentia and reasonable nexus in Article 14 jurisprudence.
Addressing the Petitioner's claim under Article 19(1)(g), the Court stated:
> “Non-conferment of designation as Senior Advocate cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as either discriminatory or an impediment in the practise as an Advocate. 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.”
The Court dismissed the petition, concluding that Rule 9B is not unconstitutional and the distinction between DHJS officers and officers from other states is justified. The ruling clarifies that while the Delhi High Court provides a special route for retired DHJS officers for Senior Advocate designation based on their readily assessable records, it does not preclude other experienced judicial officers from seeking designation under Rule 9A, which applies to practicing advocates generally.
#SeniorAdvocate #DelhiHighCourt #Rule9B #DelhiHighCourt
No Prima Facie Case of Anti-Competitive Agreements or Abuse of Dominance in Solar Tender: CCI Closes Matter Under Section 26(2) of Competition Act
17 Apr 2026
Delhi HC Quashes POCSO FIR in Consensual Case, Lays Guidelines When 'De-Jure Victim' Denies Harm Under Section 6 POCSO
17 Apr 2026
Supreme Court Orders CCTV, GPS to Curb Chambal Mining
17 Apr 2026
Delhi High Court Rejects EWS Age Relaxation Plea
17 Apr 2026
Supreme Court Denies Khera Bail Extension, Directs Gauhati HC
17 Apr 2026
Madras HC Directs Municipality to Auction Amusement Rides Licenses on Vaigai Riverbed for Chithirai Festival: Madurai Bench
17 Apr 2026
TCS Nashik Accused Seek Bail in Harassment Probe
17 Apr 2026
Insurer Liable for Gratuitous Passenger in Goods Vehicle, Can Recover from Owner: Kerala High Court
17 Apr 2026
MP High Court Issues Notice in PIL Alleging Disrespect to National Song 'Vande Mataram' by Indore Councillors: Article 51A(a)
17 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.