Delhi High Court Upholds Rule 9B: No Senior Advocate Designation for Retired Judicial Officers from Other States

 Delhi High Court Upholds Rule 9B: No Senior Advocate Designation for Retired Judicial Officers from Other States

By Abhishek Jat, Advocate

The Delhi High Court, in a recent ruling, reaffirmed the validity of Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024. The decision effectively restricts the eligibility for Senior Advocate designation to retired judicial officers exclusively from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS), thereby excluding their counterparts from other states. This verdict was delivered by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in the case of Vijai Pratap Singh v. Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 2045/2025, decided on March 27, 2025.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, a retired judicial officer with extensive experience in the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (HJS), challenged Rule 9B on the grounds of arbitrariness and discrimination. He contended that the rule contravenes Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19(1)(g) (Right to Practice a Profession), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution of India by creating an unreasonable classification. The petitioner highlighted his judicial tenure spanning over 43 years, including positions as a Judicial Member of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and a Technical Member of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Despite his credentials, he was excluded from the benefits of Rule 9B merely because his service was outside Delhi.

Legal Contentions and Court's Observations

The petitioner argued that the rule was arbitrary as it granted the privilege of seeking Senior Advocate designation only to retired DHJS officers with a minimum tenure of ten years while denying the same to equally or more qualified retired judicial officers from other states. He asserted that such classification lacked a reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved and, therefore, violated Article 14. Furthermore, he contended that no other High Court had a similar provision, making Rule 9B an anomalous and unjustified restriction.

However, the Court found these arguments untenable and upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 9B. It relied on the precedent set in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766, which underscored that the power to designate a Senior Advocate must be exercised in a structured and objective manner. The Court reaffirmed that Senior Advocate designation is not an uncontrolled privilege but a distinction granted based on demonstrable legal expertise and standing at the Bar.

Rationale for Upholding Rule 9B

The Court delineated several key justifications for upholding Rule 9B:

1. Intelligible Differentia: The classification between DHJS officers and retired judicial officers from other states was based on intelligible differentia. The Delhi High Court exercises administrative control under Article 235 of the Constitution over the DHJS, allowing it to maintain records, evaluate judicial performance, and assess the competence of retired DHJS officers. In contrast, the Court lacks access to similar records for retired HJS officers from other states, making an objective evaluation of their judicial expertise infeasible.
2. No Restriction on Practice: The Court clarified that Rule 9B does not impose any restriction on the petitioner’s right to practice law, thereby negating the alleged violation of Article 19(1)(g). The rule merely limits eligibility for a particular designation and does not prevent any advocate, including retired judicial officers, from pursuing a successful legal practice.
3. Exclusivity of Delhi High Court's Administrative Jurisdiction: The Court emphasized that tribunals such as the NCLT and NCLAT do not fall under the Delhi High Court’s administrative purview. Consequently, the petitioner's experience in these quasi-judicial bodies could not be considered a basis for Senior Advocate designation under Rule 9B.

Implications of the Ruling

This judgment sets a significant precedent in regulating the conferment of Senior Advocate designation. By reinforcing the necessity of administrative oversight and judicial familiarity in evaluating candidates for this honorific title, the ruling underscores the autonomy of High Courts in framing rules tailored to their jurisdictional and administrative requirements.

For retired judicial officers from other states aspiring to earn the designation, the decision underscores the necessity of practicing as advocates for at least ten years to qualify under Rule 9A rather than seeking direct eligibility under Rule 9B.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision to uphold Rule 9B reaffirms the principle that judicial designations must be conferred based on clear, objective criteria rather than an open-ended policy. The ruling not only strengthens the framework governing the conferment of Senior Advocate designation but also ensures that only those within the administrative oversight of the Delhi High Court are eligible for this privilege.

While the petitioner’s grievance highlights a broader debate on uniformity in judicial recognition across states, the verdict affirms that procedural safeguards and judicial familiarity play a crucial role in bestowing such distinctions. Ultimately, the decision maintains the integrity and credibility of the Senior Advocate designation process within the Delhi High Court’s jurisdiction.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers are advised to consult qualified legal professionals for specific legal concerns.