Delhi High Court Upholds Rule Prohibiting Retired Judges Of Other States From Applying For Senior Advocate Designation
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the rule prohibiting retired judges of other States to apply for senior advocate designation in Delhi. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld the validity of Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024.As per the Rule, Retired...
The Delhi High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the rule prohibiting retired judges of other States to apply for senior advocate designation in Delhi.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld the validity of Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024.
As per the Rule, Retired Judicial Officers or those who have voluntarily retired after ten years of service of Delhi Higher Judicial Service may at any time submit a letter of request for designation as Senior Advocate.
The Court dismissed the plea filed by a retired judge, having extensive experience in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, challenging the rule as being arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The retired judge submitted that the impugned Rule 9B was arbitrary and discriminatory as it restricts the privilege of submitting a request letter for designation as a Senior Advocate, to the retired judicial officers of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service with 10 years of service.
It was further submitted that the impugned Rule was creating an unreasonable classification under which any retired judicial officer from other state judiciaries who regularly practices before the Delhi High Court were arbitrarily excluded from availing the benefits of being designated as senior advocate in Delhi.
Rejecting the plea, the Court said that expecting the Judges of the Delhi Court to confer designation as a Senior Advocate upon retired judicial officers of other states was not possible.
“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 individual a status if not equivalent, but befitting the status of a Judge of that Court. 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 said.
It added It that the distinction sought to be drawn between the retired judicial officers of DHJS and other States was based entirely on intelligible differentia and is, ex facie, not violative of equality enshrined in Article 14 of Constitution of India, 1950.
Furthermore, the Court said that 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 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 practise in any of the Courts in any part of this country, including the Supreme Court of India,” the Court said.
Title: SH VIJAI PRATAP SINGH v. DELHI HIGH COURT, THROUGH REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 374
