Lawyer Challenges Notification Issued By Orissa High Court Conferring 'Senior Designation' On 8 Advocates

A lawyer has challenged the notification issued by the Orissa High Court on 27th April 2022, which conferred 'senior designations' on eight (8) advocates. The said notification has been assailed for being violative of the guidelines issued in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India through Secretary General & Ors., the Advocates Act, 1961 and the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 ('the Rules'). The Petition, inter alia, stated, "That the action of the permanent committee sending nine names including the names of the opposite party No. 4 to 11 to the Hon'ble Full Court is completely arbitrary, discriminatory and not bona fide the same being contrary to the Rules, 2019." Factual Background: Advocate Mr. Banshidhar Baug, the present petitioner applied for being designated as a Senior Advocate during 2013-14 as per the guidelines of the Rules of 2011 published on 13.06.2011. While the matter was pending for consideration, the Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising (supra), framed the Rules called as the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019. In the said Rules, the detailed procedures were prescribed for application by the intending Advocates and proposals given by Judges and the Chief Justice for designating a particular Advocate as Senior Advocate. As per the said Rules, it was prescribed that there shall be a Permanent Committee consisting of the Chief Justice, two senior-most Judges of the High Court, the Advocates General of the State of Odisha and a designated Senior Advocate of the Bar to be nominated by the Members of the Committee. After constitution of the Permanent Committee, the Court through its Registrar (Judicial) vide Advertisement No. 1 dated 22.04.2019 called for applications from eligible intending candidates for being designated as Senior Advocates as per the Rules. After framing of the Rules, 2019 and issuance of the Advertisement No. 1 dated 22.04.2019, the Special Officer (Special Cell) of the Court directed the petitioner to re-submit a fresh application for being designated as Senior Advocate. In pursuance of the letter dated 22.04.2019 issued by the Special Officer (Special Cell), the petitioner applied in the prescribed format for being designated as Senior Advocate on dated 22.05.2019. Along with other advocates, the Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 11 also applied for being designated as Senior Advocates as per the Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner was also noticed by the Special Officer (Special Cell) of the Court on 02.07.2019 to furnish the required documents, i.e., the declaration as per the advertisement. While the matter stood thus and before compliance of the sub-rule (3) of Rule 6, the Permanent Committee recommended the names of the opposite party No. 4 to 8 for being designated as Senior Advocates on 08.08.2019. That on the next day, i.e., on 09.08.2019, as per Rule 6(3) of the Rules, 2019, the Registrar (Judicial) of the Court issued notice inviting suggestions and views, if any, against the petitioner as well as 45 other Applicant-Advocates. In those 45 names, the name of the Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 8 did not find place. The last date for receiving the suggestion and views as per the notice dated 09.08.2019 was fixed to 08.09.2019. While the matter stood thus, awaiting the views and proposals as per notice dated 09.08.2019, the Full Court meeting of the Court was held on 17.08.2019 and in the said Full Court meeting, along with other works, one agenda was with regard to the minutes of the Permanent Committee for designation of Advocates as Senior Advocates held on 08.08.2019. The Full Court approved the recommendation of the Permanent Committee. Subsequently, the Chief Justice designated the Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 8 as Senior Advocates and the same was notified by the Registrar General on 19.08.2019. The petitioner being aggrieved by the declaration of the Opposite Party Nos.4 to 8 as Senior Advocates in exercise of suo motu power under Rule 6(9) of the Rules filed a writ petition before the High Court, not only for quashing the inclusion of the suo motu power of the High Court under sub-rule (9) of Rule 6 of the Rules, which was contrary to the guidelines of Indira Jaising's case (supra), but also to quash the declaration of the Opposite Party Nos. 4 to 8 as Senior Advocates. A Division Bench of the Court after hearing the parties, by a common judgment dated 10.05.2021 allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioner and others in part and declared sub-rule (9) of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2019 as ultra vires as the same was not in consonance with the judgment of Indira Jaising (supra). Further, the Court held that the entire process of conferring designation of Senior Advocates on the Opposite party Nos. 4 to 8 was discriminatory. However, the Court directed that notice...

Lawyer Challenges Notification Issued By Orissa High Court Conferring 'Senior Designation' On 8 Advocates

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags