The designation of Senior Advocates under the Advocates Act, 1961, is a privilege based on merit, requiring adherence to principles of fairness and transparency in the designation process.

JUDGMENT :

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

1. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for all the parties and perused the materials available on record.

2. These Special Leave Petitions are filed by the High Court of Orissa on its administrative side, challenging the common judgment and order dated 10.05.2021¹[For short, “the impugned order”] passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack on the judicial side²[For short, “the High Court”], in W.P.(C) Nos.17009 and 17110 of 2019. By the impugned order, the High Court quashed Sub-rule (9) of Rule 6 of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019³[For short, “the Rules, 2019”], on the ground that it is ultra vires and not in consonance with the guidelines laid down in paragraphs 73 and 74 of the judgment of this Court in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India [(2017) 9 SCC 766]⁴[Hereinafter referred to as “the Indira Jaising - 1”]. Further, the High Court also quashed the notification dated 4th September 2019, issued by it on the administrative side, which called for applications from eligible advocates to be considered for designation as Senior Advocates under the Rules, 2019. Additionally, the High Court directed that Notification No.1378 dated 19.08.2019 shall remain in abeyance until a fresh decision is taken by the Full Court regarding designation of Senior Advocates.

3. On 02.08.2021, when the special leave petitions were taken up for consideration, this Court stayed the operation of paragraph 24 of the impugned order, which had declared Rule 6(9) as ultra vires and not being in consonance with the judgment in Indira Jaising -1.

4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the High Court is not justified in quashing Rule 6(9) of the Rules, 2019 which is in consonance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 as well as the judgment of this Court in Indira Jaising -1, which was subsequently clarified in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India [(2023) 8 SCC 1]⁵[Hereinafter referred to as “the Indira Jaising -2”].

4.1. Continuing further, on the issue of whether the powers of the Full Court can be subject to guidelines or a framework laid down by this Court in matters concerning the designation of Senior Advocates, the learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions:

(a) The Rules, 2019 as amended, contemplate the modes of designation i.e.

(i) A written proposal proposing an Advocate by the Chief Justice/Judge or submission of written application by the Advocate concerned; and (ii) Suo motu designation by the Full Court, which amounts to a ‘recognition’ of eminence and excellence. It was also submitted that the guidelines/framework laid down in Indira Jaising -1 and clarified in Indira Jaising -2, apply only to the first mode – i.e., when designation is sought via application – not to the suo motu designations made by the Full Court.

(b) The entire structure – s