Orissa High Court and Others v. Banshidhar Baug and Others Etc.
Background
The Orissa High Court, on its administrative side, challenged a judgment of the Orissa High Court's own judicial side that had struck down Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019: the provision allowing the Full Court to suo motu (on its own initiative, without an application) designate advocates as Senior Advocates. The judicial-side order had held this suo motu power to be inconsistent with the Supreme Court's earlier guidelines in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017), and had also quashed a related notification inviting fresh Senior Advocate applications, along with certain suo motu designations already made under the rule.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judicial-side order and upheld the validity of the suo motu designations. It held that the source of power to designate Senior Advocates under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 always included the Full Court's inherent suo motu power, which the 2017 Indira Jaising guidelines never intended to abolish. They merely added a parallel, application-based process for transparency. The Court relied heavily on a recent three-judge bench ruling in Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi (2025), which had already reconsidered and diluted the earlier 100-point assessment system, reaffirming that suo motu designation by consensus of the Full Court remains valid provided it is fair, transparent, and objective. The Court also emphasized that Senior Advocate designation is a privilege granted at judicial discretion, not an entitlement based on seniority or popularity, and directed the Orissa High Court to keep its amended Rule 6(9) in force until it frames fresh rules in line with the Jitender @ Kalla guidelines.
Lesson Learnt
Even as courts push for more transparent, merit-based processes for professional honours like Senior Advocate designation, the constitutional courts retain the inherent power to recognize outstanding advocates on their own initiative: reform of a process doesn't necessarily mean abolishing the underlying discretionary power it was meant to regulate.