The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024, which prohibits retired judges from other states from applying for senior advocate designation in Delhi.
A division bench, consisting of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, ruled that the restriction is valid and does not violate constitutional principles. The judgment came in response to a petition filed by a retired judge from the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, who challenged the rule as arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner, a retired judge with significant experience in the Uttar Pradesh judiciary, contended that Rule 9B was unfair and created an unreasonable classification. The rule allows only retired judicial officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) with at least ten years of service to submit a request for designation as a Senior Advocate.
Read also: Supreme Court Collegium Proposes Transfer of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma to Calcutta High Court
The petitioner argued that this exclusion unfairly prevented retired judges from other states, even if they regularly practiced before the Delhi High Court, from being considered for the designation. This, according to the petitioner, amounted to discrimination and an unjustifiable restriction.
Court’s Rationale and Decision
Rejecting the plea, the Delhi High Court stated that it would not be feasible for the court’s judges to confer Senior Advocate status on retired judicial officers from other states. The bench emphasized that such designations are not granted solely based on a candidate’s records but also involve a detailed evaluation of their professional standing and personal attributes.
"After all, designation as a Senior Advocate by a High Court under the Rules is not merely on the basis of records available but also on the basis of the aforesaid parameters of an individual's personality. Designation as a Senior Advocate confers upon such an individual a status, if not equivalent, but befitting the status of a Judge of that Court," the Court noted.
The Court further clarified that the distinction between retired judicial officers of DHJS and those from other states was based on intelligible differentia and did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
"Keeping in view the sensitivity and sensibilities involved, the seriousness and the importance of evaluation of an Advocate or a retired Judicial Officer seeking designation as a Senior Advocate cannot be undermined," the Court added.
The bench also dismissed claims that the rule acted as a professional barrier, stating that not being designated as a Senior Advocate does not restrict a lawyer’s ability to practice in courts, including the Supreme Court of India.
"The designation as a Senior Advocate may only confer certain status coupled with privileges, but those alone would not prevent or debar the petitioner from continuing his practice in any of the Courts in any part of this country, including the Supreme Court of India," the judgment observed.
Title: SH VIJAI PRATAP SINGH v. DELHI HIGH COURT, THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR
