Summary of the Judgment
Citation: Orissa High Court and Others vs. Banshidhar Baug and Others, 2025 INSC 839 (Supreme Court of India)

Citation: Orissa High Court and Others vs. Banshidhar Baug and Others, 2025 INSC 839 (Supreme Court of India)
Related Law: Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961; Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) 9 SCC 766 & (2023) 8 SCC 1; High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019.

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court adjudicated a dispute concerning the designation of Senior Advocates by the Orissa High Court. The core issue revolved around the validity of Rule 6(9) of the High Court’s 2019 Rules, which allowed suo motu designation of Senior Advocates by the Full Court, and its compliance with the guidelines laid down in Indira Jaising judgments.

2. Factual Background

• 2019 Rules: The Orissa High Court framed rules for Senior Advocate designation, including:
  Application-based process (Rule 5).
  Suo motu power of the Full Court (Rule 6(9)).

• Dispute: The High Court (judicial side) struck down Rule 6(9) as ultra vires the Indira Jaising guidelines, quashed a subsequent notification, and directed reconsideration of suo motu designations.

• Interim Stay: The Supreme Court stayed the High Court’s order pending final adjudication.

3. Key Issues

1. Whether Rule 6(9) (allowing suo motu designation) is valid under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Indira Jaising judgments.

2. Whether the High Court’s suo motu designations of certain advocates (Respondent Nos. 5–9) were arbitrary.

3. The interplay between transparency (via application-based process) and discretionary power of the Full Court.

4. Supreme Court’s Analysis

A. Validity of Suo Motu Power (Rule 6(9))

• Section 16(2), Advocates Act: Empowers High Courts/Supreme Court to designate Senior Advocates based on ability, standing, or special knowledge.

• Indira Jaising Judgments:
  2017 Judgment: Introduced a transparent, point-based system but retained the Full Court’s suo motu power for exceptional cases.
  2023 Clarification: Reiterated that suo motu designations are permissible if based on consensus and merit.

• Court’s View:
  Rule 6(9) aligns with Section 16(2) and Indira Jaising principles.
  The High Court erred in striking it down as ultra vires.

B. Designation Process & Fairness

• Amended Rule 6(9) (2023): Now explicitly requires suo motu designations to be for "exceptional and eminent advocates" via Full Court consensus.

• Precedents:
  Jitender @ Kalla (2025): Upheld Full Court’s discretionary power but emphasized fairness and transparency.
  The Court noted that interviews/point-based systems may not always capture an advocate’s true merit.

C. Outcome for Respondents 5–9

• Their suo motu designations were revalidated after undergoing the application process per Supreme Court’s interim order.

• No interference warranted as the process was completed fairly.

5. Conclusion & Directions

1. Rule 6(9) Upheld: The suo motu power of the Full Court is valid but must be exercised judiciously for exceptional candidates.

2. High Court’s Order Set Aside: The impugned judgment quashing Rule 6(9) and the 2019 notification is overturned.

3. Future Designations: High Courts must frame clear rules balancing transparency (per Indira Jaising) and discretionary power.