Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Designation is viewed as a prestigious honor/recognition of merit (designation as a Senior Advocate is a milestone in the career of an Advocate ["Jitender @ Kalla VS State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 809"]), best conferred suo motu by Full Court/Permanent Committee to avoid solicitation and ensure objectivity, aligning with Section 16(2). While some rules permit applications (with rejections barring re-applications for 1-2 years ["S. Lawrence Vimalraj VS Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench - Madras"]), arguments emphasize conferment over applications to preserve dignity (promising lawyers should not undertake the ignominy of applying for designation ["Mathews J. Nedumpara VS Union Of India - Supreme Court"]). Thus, designation should prioritize court initiative over candidate applications. ["Jitender @ Kalla VS State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 809"] ["M. VEERABHADRAIAH VS UNION OF INDIA - Karnataka"] ["Mathews J. Nedumpara VS Union Of India - Supreme Court"] ["S. Lawrence Vimalraj VS Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench - Madras"]
In the prestigious world of Indian legal practice, being designated as a Senior Advocate is a mark of excellence, recognizing an advocate's eminence, skill, and contribution to the judiciary. But a key question often arises: should the designation of a Senior Advocate be based on an application by the candidate? This query touches on fundamental principles of transparency, merit, and judicial discretion under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Drawing from landmark Supreme Court judgments like Indira Jaising v. Secretary General, Supreme Court of India (Indira Jaising-1 and -2), this post explores the distinction between application-based and suo motu designations. While guidelines emphasize structured processes for applicants, the Full Court's inherent powers allow recognition without applications. Note: This is general information based on judicial precedents and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance.
The practice of designating Senior Advocates traces back to historical traditions, akin to the UK's King's/Queen's Counsel, symbolizing professional eminence. In India, Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the Supreme Court or High Courts to designate advocates as Senior Advocates, either on their motion or with consent.
The Supreme Court in Indira Jaising-1 (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1269) introduced comprehensive guidelines to ensure transparency, establishing a Secretariat and Permanent Committee with scoring criteria. Paragraph 73 details these norms (73.1 to 73.11), focusing on merit-based evaluation. However, Paragraph 74 clarifies they are not exhaustive. Subsequent refinements came in Indira Jaising-2 (2023) 8 SCC 1, adjusting scoring and procedures. Jitender @ Kalla VS State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 809
Other courts have echoed the need for rules or norms. For instance, norms have been framed and amended over time, and it's not incumbent on High Courts to frame rules before designations. Ratnamma Baramappa Nagara VS State Of Karnataka, M S Building Bengaluru - 2020 Supreme(Kar) 1037Ratnamma Baramappa Nagara VS State of Karnataka - 2020 Supreme(Kar) 1845
The heart of the debate is whether designations must stem from a candidate's application. The answer, per judicial clarifications, is no—particularly for suo motu actions by the Full Court.
Guidelines apply only to application/proposal-based processes, acting as supplementary for voluntary applicants without derogating Full Court's plenary powers under Section 16. Orissa High Court VS Banshidhar Baug - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1057 Paragraph 70 distinguishes: credentials of advocates who seeks to be designated or whom the Full Court suo motu decides to confer the honour undergo strict scrutiny, treating them alternatively. Banshidhar Baug VS Orissa High Court, represented though its Registrar General - 2021 0 Supreme(Ori) 14
This preserves flexibility: suo motu recognizes standing outside the application framework. Full Court's power flows directly from the statute. Orissa High Court VS Banshidhar Baug - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1057Banshidhar Baug VS Orissa High Court, represented though its Registrar General - 2021 0 Supreme(Ori) 14
Indira Jaising-2 fine-tuned the process:- Scoring: 1 mark per year (10-20 years practice); +10 for judgments/pro bono; -10 for publications (now 5 points). Include teaching/guest lectures for holistic assessment. Jitender @ Kalla VS State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 809Indira Jaising VS Supreme Court of India, Through Secretary General - 2023 3 Supreme 706- Voting: Secret ballot as exception with recorded reasons, not rule. Indira Jaising VS Supreme Court of India, Through Secretary General - 2023 3 Supreme 706- Interviews: Allow personal examination for nuanced assessment; waiveable in discretion if fair. Indira Jaising VS Supreme Court of India, Through Secretary General - 2023 3 Supreme 706Vishnu Behari Tewari VS High Court Judicature at Allahabad - 2024 Supreme(All) 1593- Emphasizes diversity (gender, first-generation lawyers) and exceptional young advocates (below 45). Indira Jaising VS Supreme Court of India, Through Secretary General - 2023 3 Supreme 706
The Court noted: The process of improvement is a continuous one... The ultimate objective is to provide better assistance to litigants and the Courts. Indira Jaising VS Supreme Court of India, Through Secretary General - 2023 3 Supreme 706
High Courts have upheld these principles:- In challenges to Allahabad High Court designations, the Permanent Committee's discretion to waive interviews was affirmed, provided transparency. No arbitrary cut-offs if guidelines followed. Vishnu Behari Tewari VS High Court Judicature at Allahabad - 2024 Supreme(All) 1593- Delhi High Court's Rule 9B (limiting retired judicial officers) was constitutional, based on assessable performance. Vijai Pratap Singh vs Delhi High Court, Through Registrar General - 2025 Supreme(Del) 49- Chhattisgarh High Court: Designations require transparency; frame guidelines, but existing ones valid. Tamaskar V. G. v. High Court of Chhattisgarh and Others - 2006 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 33- Karnataka High Court: Full Court not bound by Permanent Committee; process includes interviews and points. T. N. Raghupathy, S/o late Narayana Udupa VS High Court of Karnataka - 2020 Supreme(Kar) 40- Allahabad Rules: Proposals limited; no right to designation—it's recognition of eminence. Sunil Kumar Tripathi VS High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - 2019 Supreme(All) 2520
Petitioners arguing guidelines bind suo motu have been rebuffed; High Court orders ignoring clarifications may be per incuriam. Orissa High Court VS Banshidhar Baug - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1057
Designation confers judge-like status, demanding high standards. Vijai Pratap Singh vs Delhi High Court, Through Registrar General - 2025 Supreme(Del) 49
The designation of Senior Advocates should not be limited to applications by candidates. While Paragraph 73 guidelines structure applicant processes, suo motu Full Court powers remain intact for recognizing eminence. This balance ensures merit, transparency, and judicial efficiency.
Key Takeaways:- Guidelines supplementary for applications, not mandatory for suo motu. Banshidhar Baug VS Orissa High Court, represented though its Registrar General - 2021 0 Supreme(Ori) 14- Continuous refinement promotes diversity and excellence. Jitender @ Kalla VS State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 809- Courts retain discretion; fairness paramount.
For full texts, refer to Indira Jaising-1 and Indira Jaising-2. Always seek professional advice for specific cases, as judicial interpretations evolve.
#SeniorAdvocate #IndiraJaising #LegalDesignation
Respondent No.10 was himself a candidate who had submitted an application for designation as Senior Advocate, then how he could be the member of the Permanent Committee. He has also been designated as Senior Advocate. ... The suitability of an Advocate for designation as Senior Advocate cannot be judged by the candidate himself; it is always subjective satisfaction of the Committ....
If the Full Court rejects the application of a candidate, that candidate will not be able to apply for senior advocate designation for next two years, however if Permanent Committee rejects a candidate, that candidate will not be able to apply for next one year. ... Learned counsel further submitted that 30% reservation in Senior Advocate designation is practica....
While the court’s intention was to democratize the designation system, it has not addressed situations, where one candidate may perform well in an interview, whereas another equally meritorious candidate may not, thereby creating a disparity in marks and depriving an eminent counsel of designation. ... Procedure for Designation:-… (9) Notwithstanding the above noted procedure for designation of an Advocate as Senior#HL_END....
The claim of the petitioner is for conferring designation of ‘Senior Advocate’ which powers are exclusively vested in the High Court. ... The Full Court is not bound to record reasons for grant of designation or for declining to grant designation. ... 73.11 In the event a Senior Advocate is guilty of conduct which according to the Full Court disentitles the Senior Advocate concerned to continue to be worthy of th....
He further submitted that designation as a Senior Advocate is a milestone in the career of an Advocate, and asking an Advocate for consent should not be the only way of conferring designation. ... Therefore, the practice of making a formal application can be continued. An Act of making application will amount to consent of the Advocate for being considered for designation. Act of making such appli....
We believe that an interview process would allow for a more personal and in-depth examination of the candidate. An interview also enables a more holistic assessment, particularly as the Senior Advocate designation is an honour conferred to exceptional advocates. ... Presently, the designation of Senior Advocates in India is provided by Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Advocates Act’), wherein advocates are classified in two categories, namely as a ....
Thus, the designation as a Senior Advocate may not be conferred on any advocate except one who may qualify the strict test of Section 16(2) of the Act. ... (iv) TO ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad not to notify the designation of Advocate as Senior Advocate in compliance of sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the #HL_STA....
Designation as a Senior Advocate confers upon such individual a status if not equivalent, but befitting the status of a Judge of that Court. ... The submission of the petitioner that denial of consideration of his application seeking designation as Senior Advocate would amount to violation of his right of freedom to practise under Article 19(1)(g) of the a href=".. ... As such, he states that in case Rule 9B is not struck off or rea....
It is averred that application made by an advocate desiring to be designated as a senior advocate, is not contemplated in Section 16(2) of the Act as the designation is a matter of honour bestowed on an advocate by the Court and filing an application by the concerned advocate is not in consonance with ... as to who should be conferred for designation of senior advocate#....
Advocates Act, 1961 laying down therein the procedure for designation of Senior Advocates as well as the manner in which the application will be filed by an Advocate for designating him as a Senior Advocate and the manner in which such applications will be dealt with, but the aforesaid Rules ... But we make it clear that when a challenge is made by a practising Advocate to the designation of the Senior Advocate by ....
(9) Notwithstanding the above noted procedure for designation of an Advocate as Senior Advocate, Full Court on its own can designate an Advocate as Senior Advocate even without any proposal from Hon’ble Judges or application from the Advocate if it is of the opinion that by virtue of his/her ability or standing at the Bar said Advocate deserves such designation.” A cursory reading of the aforesaid Rule makes it clear that sub-rules-(1) & (2) correspond to paragraph-73.4 of the Judgment in Indira Jaising case. The cases that have not been favorably considered by the Full Cou....
Designation of senior advocates is in Section 16(2) of the Act. On the other hand, the aforesaid judgments clearly enunciate that when a statue prescribes making rules for exercise of power or taking any action under a particular provision, the absence of rules being framed, exercise of power is not illegal. Therefore, it is not incumbent upon the High Court to frame rules before designation of an advocate a senior advocate could be made by it. That apart, as far as this Court is concerned, Norms have been framed and amended from time to time.
On the other hand, the aforesaid judgments clearly enunciate that when a statue prescribes making rules for exercise of power or taking any action under a particular provision, the absence of rules being framed, exercise of power is not illegal. Designation of senior advocates is in Section 16(2) of the Act. That apart, as far as this Court is concerned, Norms have been framed and amended from time to time. Therefore, it is not incumbent upon the High Court to frame rules before designation of an advocate a senior advocate could be made by it.
Sub-Section (2) of Section 16 clearly indicates that the concerned High Court, even on its own, can grant such designation to an Advocate as a Senior Advocate with his consent. Thus, as for as the High Court is concerned, the power is conferred on the High Court which can be exercised only by the Full Court. Section itself does not contemplate an application being made either by an Advocate concerned or any other Senior Advocates on his behalf for grant of designation as a Senior Advocate. The sub-section (2) of Section 16 or any other sub-sections of Section 16 do not conf....
(a) on the written proposal made by the Chief Justice or any sitting Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Designation of an Advocate as Senior Advocate by the High Court may be considered: Provided that a sitting Judge will not make a proposal for more than two Advocates in a calendar year; or
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
