Senior Designation Rules| Permanent Committee Cannot Withhold, Eliminate, Or Defer Any Advocate's Name For Designation As Senior Advocate: Orissa HC
The Orissa High Court has observed that the Permanent Committee does not possess discretion to withhold, eliminate, or defer the name of any advocate for the designation as a Senior Advocate.
The Court held that the ultimate authority to designate an Advocate as a Senior Advocate resides with the Full Court, not the Permanent Committee. Therefore, the Court explained that the Permanent Committee’s role is confined to making an assessment and submitting a comprehensive assessment report to the Full Court for consideration.
The petition sought to address the action of the Permanent Committee in failing to forward his name to the Full Court for consideration for designation as Senior Advocate under the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019 (2019 Rules).
A Division Bench of Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice S.K. Panigrahi observed, “The ultimate authority to designate an Advocate as a Senior Advocate clearly resides with the Hon’ble Full Court, not the Permanent Committee. Therefore, the Permanent Committee’s role is confined to making an assessment and submitting a comprehensive assessment report to the Hon’ble Full Court for consideration. It does not have the authority to make final decisions on designation or exclude candidates from consideration based on its recommendations.”
The petitioner appeared in person, while Govt. Advocate Jyoti Prakash Patnaik represented the opposite parties.
The petitioner asserted that Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (1961 Act) empowered the Supreme Court and High Courts to confer the designation of Senior Advocate upon an advocate, provided that the Court was satisfied that the advocate’s skill, standing at the Bar, or specialised knowledge and experience in law warranted such a designation.
During the year 2013-14, the petitioner had applied for consideration for designation as a Senior Advocate. While the application was pending, the Court adhering to a directive from the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017) formulated the 2019 Rules. These rules outlined a comprehensive procedure for the designation of Senior Advocates. The Division Bench of the High Court in 2021 declared sub-rule (9) of Rule 6 of the 2019 Rules ultra vires in view of the Indira Jaising guidelines.
The petitioner argued that the decision of the Permanent Committee to defer his case was in contravention of Rule 6(5) and Rule 6(6) of the 2019 Rules. He contended that this decision was beyond jurisdiction and had been rendered null and void by the 2021 judgment of the Division Bench.
The High Court held that the 2019 Rules did not grant the Permanent Committee the authority to set a cut-off score based on the criteria outlined in the Indira Jaising (supra) directives, nor did it empower the Committee to advance only those Advocates who meet such a cut-off.
“We respectfully conclude that under the 2019 Rules, the Permanent Committee is required to perform its overall assessment based on the point-based format after reviewing the materials provided by the Secretariat and, if necessary, interacting with the concerned Advocates. The Permanent Committee does not possess the discretion to withhold, eliminate, or defer the name of any Advocate at this stage,” the Court observed.
The Bench further noted that “withholding, elimination, or deferral of an Advocate's name after scrutiny falls outside the permissible functions of the Permanent Committee.”
The Court clarified that Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the 2019 Rules empowered the Permanent Committee to issue directions concerning the collection, compilation, and presentation of data related to the designation of Senior Advocates. However, these directions must adhere to the stipulations of Rule 6.
Consequently, the Court held, “Deferring the petitioner’s case indefinitely, particularly in light of the judgment 2021 effectively denies him his right to be considered.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: Banshidhar Baug v. Orissa High Court & Ors.
