Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024 is constitutional, as it distinguishes between judicial officers based on assessable performance, thus not violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Rules’) as being arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India .

2. The petitioner is a retired judicial officer with extensive experience in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. After serving 36 years in the Uttar Pradesh Judiciary, including 16 years in the Higher Judicial Service (hereafter referred to as ‘HJS’), the petitioner was selected and appointed as a Judicial Member of the National Company Law Tribunal (hereafter referred to as ‘NCLT’). Subsequently, the petitioner was elevated as a ‘Technical Member’ of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (hereafter referred to as ‘NCLAT’), Delhi, and retired upon attaining the age of 67, on 20.02.2022.

3. On 14.03.2024, this Court issued Notification No.18/Rules/DHC whereby certain amendments in Chapter 6-L, Volume V of High Court Rules & Orders were made. Part L of Chapter 6 provides the Rules to designate an advocate as a senior advocate. The impugned Rule 9B of the High Court Senior Designation Rules, 2024 has been added vide the aforesaid notification.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER-IN-PERSON:-

4. The petitioner appears in person and states that the impugned Rule 9B is arbitrary and discriminatory as it restricts the privilege of submitting a request letter for designation as a Senior Advocate, to the retired judicial officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (hereafter referred to as ‘DHJS’) with 10 years of service. It is submitted that the impugned Rule is creating an unreasonable classification under which any retired judicial officer of HJS from other state judiciaries who regularly practices before this Court and contributes to the development of jurisprudence are conveniently and arbitrarily excluded from availing the benefits of Rule 9B of the Rules.

5. It is stated that the petitioner has significant experience of 16 years as an HJS officer in Uttar Pradesh out of a total of 43 years as a judge in the State of UP, NCLT, and NCLAT and despite such credentials, he has been unreasonably excluded from the benefits of Rule 9B solely because he served as a judicial officer in a State other than Delhi.

6. The petitioner, who appears in person, on the aforesaid facts contends that the Rules as framed by this Court for the purposes of eligibility to confer the designation of a Senior Advocate, particularly Rule 9B is violative of his rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and is discriminatory being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India , as the class of individuals specified therein has no reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved; nor is it based on any intelligible differentia. According to the petitioner, there is no rationale as to why under Rule 9B of the Rules, only those judicial officers who have retired from DHJS and are practicing, alone are eligible to apply for conferment of designation as a Senior Advocate. The petitioner states that he retired as a judicial officer in the Uttar Pradesh HJS after serving 36 years which included 16 years in the HJS. He also emphasizes that subsequent to his superannuation, he was also selected and appointed as a Judicial Member of the NCLT. So much so that the petitioner was also elevated as ‘Technical Member’ of the NCLAT and completed his tenure upon attaining the age of 67 years on 20.02.2022. He states that subsequently, he has been practicing as an advocate in various Courts including this Court and the Supreme Court of India.

7. Predicated on the aforesaid facts and grounds, the petitioner states that the Rule 9B of the Rules restricts its ambit only to those judicial officers who retired from their services rendered in the DHJS. This, according to the petitioner