Delhi High Court Upholds Rule Limiting Senior Advocate Designation to Delhi Judicial Officers

The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 9B under the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024, which restricts retired judges from other states from applying for the designation of Senior Advocate in Delhi. The ruling came from a division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, who rejected a challenge against the rule as discriminatory and arbitrary.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a plea filed by a retired judge of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, who had served for over ten years and sought to be designated as a Senior Advocate in Delhi. The petitioner contended that Rule 9B, which allows only retired judicial officers from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) to apply for senior advocate status, was violative of Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(g) (right to practice), and 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.

Arguments of the Petitioner

The retired judge argued that the rule unfairly excluded judicial officers from other states, particularly those with significant experience and who regularly practiced before the Delhi High Court, from the privilege of being designated as Senior Advocate.

Court's Decision

• Rejection of Plea: However, the court disagreed with the petitioner’s arguments, emphasizing that the distinction between judicial officers of the DHJS and those from other states was based on "intelligible differentia" and did not violate constitutional guarantees of equality. According to the court, the decision to confer Senior Advocate status is not merely based on qualifications but also on the evaluation of an individual’s personality and standing, which involves the seriousness and sensitivity of the process
• Senior Advocate Designation Not Just Based on Experience: The court further noted that the designation of Senior Advocate by a High Court confers a prestigious status, and such a designation is closely tied to the status of a Judge of that Court. In this context, the distinction drawn by Rule 9B was seen as reasonable.

Court's Clarification on Practice Rights

In rejecting the plea, the court clarified that the denial of Senior Advocate status did not bar any individual from practicing as an advocate in Delhi or any other court in the country, including the Supreme Court of India. The court underscored that the absence of Senior Advocate designation does not prevent a qualified advocate from continuing to practice or earn their livelihood.

Key Observations

• The designation as Senior Advocate may only confer certain status coupled with privileges, but it does not prevent an individual from practicing law.
  
• The classification under Rule 9B is based on a rational basis, maintaining the sensitivities of the Delhi High Court and its status.
  
• The decision to designate someone as a Senior Advocate involves more than just professional experience; it includes a personal evaluation of the advocate's standing.
  

Case Title: SH VIJAI PRATAP SINGH v. DELHI HIGH COURT, THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR., 2025