Delhi HC Upholds Rule 9B: Differential Senior Advocate Designation for Retired DHJS Officers Not Discriminatory - 2025-03-28

Delhi High Court Upholds Special Senior Advocate Designation Rule for Retired DHJS Officers

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 Vijai Pratap Singh , a retired judicial officer with extensive experience in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service and tribunals like NCLT and NCLAT.

Case Background: Challenge to Rule 9B

Shri Vijai Pratap Singh challenged Rule 9B, arguing it unfairly restricts the privilege of seeking Senior Advocate designation to only retired DHJS officers with 10 years of service. He contended that this rule arbitrarily excludes experienced judicial officers from other state judiciaries, who, like himself, regularly practice before the Delhi High Court. Singh argued that the rule violated Articles 14 (Equality before Law) and 19(1)(g) (Freedom to practice any profession) of the Constitution of India.

Petitioner's Arguments: Discrimination and Violation of Rights

Appearing in person, Shri Vijai Pratap Singh argued that Rule 9B creates an unreasonable classification with no rational basis. He emphasized his 16 years of experience in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service and subsequent service in NCLT/NCLAT, asserting that his credentials should qualify him for consideration under Rule 9B. He argued that excluding officers from other state judiciaries, while including DHJS officers, is discriminatory and infringes upon his fundamental right to practice his profession under Article 19(1)(g). He cited Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India and Dr. Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goel & Ors. to support his claims against geographical discrimination and curtailment of his right to practice.

Respondents' Defence: Justification for Rule 9B

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.

Court's Analysis and Conclusion: Intelligible Differentia Justifies Rule

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.