The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the validity of a rule allowing the Orissa High Court to designate lawyers as Senior Advocates suo motu (on its own motion), setting aside a 2019 ruling of the High Court that had struck down this power.

A Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan ruled that Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019—which authorises the full court to confer the senior gown without a written application or judicial reference—was valid and in line with constitutional principles.

The Bench noted that the issue had already been settled in Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi (May 2024), where the top court reaffirmed that suo motu designations are valid provided they are carried out in a fair, transparent, and objective manner.

“In Jitender Kalla, the Court reaffirmed the validity of suo motu designation by a full court, provided such designation adheres to the constitutional principles of fairness, transparency and objectivity,” the Supreme Court observed.

The controversy dates back to 2019, when the Orissa High Court's full court invoked Rule 6(9) to designate five lawyers as Senior Advocates. This move was challenged on the judicial side by four other lawyers who had applied for the designation.

In a ruling dated May 10, 2021, the High Court struck down Rule 6(9), holding that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India limited the process of designating Senior Advocates to only two modes: (1) a written proposal by judges or (2) an application by the advocate concerned. The High Court ruled there was no scope for suo motu designations.

Despite quashing the rule, the High Court had allowed the 2019 designations to stand, stating that the five lawyers concerned were worthy of the honour and that withdrawing the titles would be unfair to them.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court clarified that Rule 6(9) will remain valid unless amended or repealed by the High Court. It further affirmed that the 2019 designations will continue to hold good.

“The Rule shall remain in force unless and until substituted or repealed. The senior advocate designations conferred in 2019 shall also remain intact,” the Court said while disposing of the appeal filed by the High Court’s administrative side.

With this ruling, the Supreme Court has conclusively endorsed the validity of suo motu designations—provided they meet constitutional benchmarks—and restored the authority of High Courts to recognise deserving lawyers without awaiting applications or references.

tg