LexORISSA HIGH COURT AND OTHERS versus BANSHIDHAR BAUG AND OTHERS ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 505 : 2025 INSC 839 Orissa High Court and Others v. Banshidhar Baug and Others Etc. (Special Leave Petition (C) No(s). 11605-11606 of 2021) 14 July 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the designation of Senior Advocates by the Full Court by exercising its suo motu power. Headnotes† Advocates Act, 1961 – ss.16(2), 34(1) – High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 – r.6(9) – Designation of Senior Advocates – Suo motu designation of Senior Advocates by the Full Court – High Court quashed r.6(9) of the Rules whereby notwithstanding the procedure, 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 forms an opinion that an advocate by virtue of his/her ability or standing at the Bar deserves such designation, as ultra vires and not being in consonance with the judgment in **Indira Jaising-1 – Justification: Held: Not justified – Suo motu designations by Full Court is valid, provided such designations adhere to the constitutional principles of fairness, transparency, and objectivity – Standards for the designation of Senior Advocates must be significantly higher than those applicable to other advocates – Judgment in ***Jitender @ Kalla’s case is concurred with and reconsideration of the issue of suo motu designations not warranted – Order passed by the High Court set aside – Amended r.6(9) to remain in force until fresh rules are framed by the High Court – Designation of respondent Nos.5 to 9 as Senior Advocates held to be valid – Judicial discipline. [Paras 17, 18, 20] * Author 506 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Advocates Act, 1961 – s.16(2) – Designation of a Senior Advocate – Observation by this Court: Held: Designation of a Senior Advocate is a mark of distinction granted by the Court in recognition of exceptional legal acumen and advocacy – It is not conferred as a matter of right, nor can any advocate claim it merely on basis of seniority, experience, or popularity – Designation is conferred at the discretion of the Court, upon satisfaction that the advocate possesses outstanding ability, integrity, and professional standing – Courts are not expected to grant this status arbitrarily or as a matter of favour – Process for designation must be merit-based, transparent, fair, and free from personal preferences or informal influences – Thus, the conferment of Senior Advocate status is a privilege, not an entitlement, and must be governed strictly by the principles of fairness, accountability, and institutional integrity. [Para 19] Case Law Cited ***Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 INSC 667 : Criminal Appeal No. 865 of 2025 – concurred. **Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India [2017] 10 SCR 478 : (2017) 9 SCC 766; Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India [2023] 5 SCR 434 : (2023) 8 SCC 1; Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 INSC 249 – referred to. List of Acts Advocates Act, 1961; High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019. List of Keywords Indira Jaising -1’s case; Indira Jaising -2’s case; Jitender @ Kalla’s case Designation as Senior Advocates; Suo motu designation by Full Court; Principles of fairness, transparency, and objectivity. Case Arising From EXTRAORDINARY CIVIL JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No(s). 11605-11606 of 2021 From the Judgment and Order dated 10.05.2021 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in WPC No. 17009 and 17110 of 2019 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 507 Orissa High Court and Others v. Banshidhar Baug and Others Etc. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioners: Atmaram N.s Nadkarni, Sr. Adv., Shovan Mishra, Ms. Bipasa Tripathy. Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Uttara Babbar, Sr. Adv., Anirudh Sanganeria, Manan Bansal, Ms. Rayana Mukherjee, Sunil Kumar Jain, Ms. Rashika Swarup, Kedar Nath Tripathy, Aditya Narayan Tripathy. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court 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 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack on the judicial side2, in W.P.(C) Nos.17009 and 17110 of 2019. By the impugned order, th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.