Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a challenge by the High Court of Orissa on its administrative side to a judicial order passed by the same High Court. The judicial side, in a common judgment dated 10.05.2021, had quashed Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, which allowed the Full Court to designate senior advocates suo motu. The judicial order held that Rule 6(9) was ultra vires and not in consonance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court (2017) 9 SCC 766. The High Court also quashed a notification calling for applications and directed that an earlier notification remain in abeyance. The administrative side, being the petitioner before the Supreme Court, contended that Rule 6(9) was perfectly valid under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and was not contrary to the Indira Jaising guidelines. It was argued that the guidelines in Indira Jaising applied only to the process of designation through application, not to the Full Court's plenary suo motu power. The subsequent decision in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court (2023) 8 SCC 1 had clarified this position. The impugned judicial order, having been passed without the benefit of this clarification, was per incuriam. Certain respondents, who had been designated suo motu under Rule 6(9), supported the validity of the rule and sought protection of their designations. Other respondents argued that the suo motu process was unfair and undermined the transparent, application-based mechanism mandated by Indira Jaising. They requested a reconsideration of the Indira Jaising judgments. The Supreme Court heard extensive submissions from all parties. The Court noted that the primary issue pertained to the designation of senior advocates by the Full Court in exercise of suo motu power. The source of this power under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 was examined. The Court reserved its judgment after hearing the parties, and no final operative order was pronounced in the available extract.
Headnote
A) Senior Advocate Designation - Suo Motu Power of Full Court - Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 - The impugned judgment quashed the rule as ultra vires - Petitioners argued that suo motu power flows from Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and is not curtailed by the guidelines in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court - The Supreme Court heard arguments and reserved judgment. (Paras 2-8) B) Precedent - Applicability of Indira Jaising Guidelines - Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court, (2017) 9 SCC 766 and (2023) 8 SCC 1 - Whether the guidelines apply to suo motu designations - Petitioners contended that the guidelines apply only to application-based processes and the later clarification supports this; the impugned order was passed per incuriam for not considering the subsequent judgment - The Court considered the submissions and reserved judgment. (Paras 4, 4.1, 4.2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, providing for suo motu designation of senior advocates by the Full Court, is ultra vires and inconsistent with the guidelines in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court, (2017) 9 SCC 766.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act
- 1961 confers power on High Courts to designate senior advocates
- the guidelines in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court
- (2017) 9 SCC 766 are procedural and apply only to application-based designations
- the Full Court's suo motu power is inherent and not diluted by the guidelines
- the impugned order was passed without considering Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court
- (2023) 8 SCC 1 and is per incuriam.
