“Senior Advocate Designation Not a Right but ‘Recognition of Ability’: Delhi HC Upholds Rule 9B Limiting Eligibility to Retired DHJS Officers”
Safiya Malik
In a recent decision rendered by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, the Delhi High Court dismissed a challenge to Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024. The Court held that the classification made in Rule 9B—limiting eligibility for designation as Senior Advocate to retired officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS)—is based on “intelligible differentia” and does not infringe upon Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Bench stated, “Non-conferment of designation as Senior Advocate cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as either discriminatory or an impediment in the practice as an Advocate.” The judgment clarifies that the right to practice law does not encompass the right to be designated as a Senior Advocate and held that “designation as a Senior Advocate is hardly a title and is actually a distinction or recognition.”
The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024. The petitioner, a retired judicial officer from the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (HJS) with 36 years of experience, including service in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), contended that Rule 9B is discriminatory and arbitrary. It was asserted that the Rule violates Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution by restricting eligibility under the said rule to only retired DHJS officers.
According to the petitioner, he possessed significant experience in judicial and quasi-judicial bodies and had been practicing before the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India post-retirement. It was submitted that excluding judicial officers from other states, who regularly practice before this Court, from Rule 9B benefits was “an unreasonable classification” with “no rational nexus with the objective sought to be achieved.”
The petitioner emphasized that no other High Court in India has framed a similar provision and contended that such a restriction amounted to “an embargo” on his right to professional recognition. It was further contended that the performance rendered in tribunals such as NCLT and NCLAT—being under the supervisory jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court—should be treated as equivalent to DHJS service. Citing judgments of the Supreme Court, including Dr. Tanvi Behl v. Shrey Goel and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the petitioner submitted that his right to practice was being curtailed based on geography, contrary to constitutional protections.
In response, counsel for the respondents, Dr. Amit George, submitted that Rule 9B was formulated for justifiable reasons and applied only to retired DHJS officers because the Delhi High Court had administrative control over their service records. It was submitted that “the Permanent Committee would have the benefit of Service Reports in the form of ACRs/APARs etc. of such judicial officers readily available,” enabling informed assessment for designation.
Dr. George placed on record the extract of the Minutes of the Meeting of the Rules Committee under Section 123 of the CPC held on 27.02.2025. The Committee stated: “The rationale behind allowing only retired officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service to apply for designation as Senior Advocates is that, as they had been officers working under the Delhi High Court, their work and performance have been assessed by the Judges of the High Court and their appraisal reports and ACRs are also available in the High Court.”
The Bench undertook a detailed historical and legal analysis of the concept of designating Senior Advocates, quoting extensively from the Supreme Court’s decision in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766. Referring to Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the Court noted that the power to designate is not uncontrolled but guided by criteria such as “ability,” “standing at the Bar,” and “special knowledge or experience in law.” The Court observed that designation “is hardly a title and is actually a distinction or recognition.”
The Bench further distinguished between Rule 9A and Rule 9B of the 2024 Rules. Rule 9A applies to practicing advocates and incorporates a point-based evaluation system. Rule 9B, introduced on 14.03.2024, provides for a separate process for retired DHJS officers, exempting them from point-based evaluation and allowing them to submit a request letter for designation.
The Court found no merit in the challenge to Rule 9B. It observed: “It is beyond cavil, on a plain reading of Rule 9B, that it applies squarely and exclusively to the judicial officers who have retired from the services of DHJS alone.” Emphasizing the administrative logic and evaluative feasibility, the Court held: “It would be well nigh impossible for a Judge of this Court to have a fair evaluation of the performance and appraisals relatable to the service conditions in the absence of any documentation in that regard.”
The Court recorded that judges of the Delhi High Court are in a position to assess the “demeanour, behaviour and interaction, both with the members of the Bar and the litigants” of DHJS officers, which is not the case for retired judicial officers from other states.
The Court recorded: “The distinction sought to be drawn between the retired judicial officers of DHJS and the HJS of other States, is based entirely on intelligible differentia and is, ex facie, not violative of equality enshrined in Article 14 of Constitution of India.”
Addressing the petitioner’s claim that denial of designation infringed his Article 19(1)(g) rights, the Court noted: “Non-conferment of designation as Senior Advocate cannot by any stretch of imagination be termed as either discriminatory or an impediment in the practise as an Advocate.” The Bench underscored that there is no “indelible or a constitutional right to be designated as a Senior Advocate.”
On the petitioner’s contention that his tenure in NCLT and NCLAT should be treated as equivalent to DHJS service, the Court held that those bodies, although under the judicial supervision of the Delhi High Court under Articles 226 and 227, are not administratively subordinate to it. The Court clarified: “Neither the Members nor the Chairperson or any of their service conditions or service related issues fall within the administrative jurisdiction exercised by this Court unlike the other Courts and Tribunals.”
Citing State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti, (2022) 13 SCC 256 and Union of India v. Nitdip Textile Processors Pvt. Ltd., (2012) 1 SCC 226, the Court observed that the classification made in Rule 9B serves a reasonable purpose and does not violate constitutional guarantees.
As for the judgments cited by the petitioner, the Court stated that reliance on Dr. Tanvi Behl and Maneka Gandhi was misplaced, noting that the right to apply for designation is not synonymous with the right to practice. Similarly, the Court found that reliance on All India Judges’ Assn. (II) v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288, was unavailing, as the envisioned All India Judicial Service had not yet materialized.
The petition was dismissed in its entirety. The Court stated: “In view of the aforesaid observations, the present petition is dismissed being bereft of merits, with no order as to costs.” The Bench also directed that the Minutes of the Rules Committee Meeting dated 27.02.2025, handed over by the respondent’s counsel, be taken on record.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Utkarsh Kandpal & Mr. Bhanu Gupta, Advocates along with petitioner in person
For the Respondents: Dr. Amit George, Mr. Arkaneil Bhaumik, Mr. Adhishwar Suri, Ms. Suparna Jain, Mr. Dushyant Kishan Kaul, Ms. Ibansara Syiemlieh, Ms. Rupam Jha and Ms. Medhavi Bhatia, Advocates
Case Title: Vijai Pratap Singh v. Delhi High Court, Through Registrar General & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1691
Case Number: W.P.(C) 2045/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
[Read/Download order]
