The Delhi High Court recently upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024. This rule permits only retired judicial officers from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) with a minimum of ten years of service to request designation as senior advocates. The court's decision effectively excludes retired judges from other states from applying for this esteemed status within the Delhi High Court.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela delivered this judgment. The case was brought before the court by a retired judge from the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, who challenged Rule 9B on grounds of arbitrariness, discrimination, and alleged violations of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Indian Constitution. The petitioner contended that the rule unfairly restricted the opportunity to seek senior advocate designation solely to retired DHJS officers, thereby excluding equally experienced judicial officers from other states who practice before the Delhi High Court.
In its deliberation, the court emphasized the significance of personal knowledge and assessment in the designation process. The judges noted that conferring the status of a senior advocate is not merely a matter of reviewing records but also involves evaluating the individual's personality, reputation, and professional conduct. They highlighted that such a designation bestows a status comparable, if not equivalent, to that of a judge of the court, underscoring the seriousness and importance of the evaluation process.
The bench reasoned that expecting the judges of the Delhi High Court to confer senior advocate designation upon retired judicial officers from other states, with whom they may not have sufficient familiarity, is impractical. They asserted that the distinction made by Rule 9B between retired DHJS officers and those from other states is based on intelligible differentia. This classification, according to the court, is not in violation of the equality principle enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.
Furthermore, the court addressed the petitioner's claims of discrimination and violation of the right to practice any profession under Article 19(1)(g). The judges observed that the designation as a senior advocate is a privilege and not a right. They maintained that the rule does not prevent retired judicial officers from other states from practicing law before the Delhi High Court; it merely sets specific criteria for the honorary designation of senior advocate within its jurisdiction.
The judgment also touched upon the broader implications of maintaining high standards within the legal profession. By restricting the eligibility for senior advocate designation to retired DHJS officers, the court aims to ensure that those conferred with this status have been closely observed and evaluated by their peers within the same judicial environment. This approach seeks to uphold the integrity and quality of legal representation before the Delhi High Court.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court's decision reinforces the principle that while the legal profession is open to all qualified individuals, certain honorary designations can be subject to specific criteria to maintain the institution's standards. By upholding Rule 9B, the court has affirmed its commitment to a fair and rigorous evaluation process for the designation of senior advocates, ensuring that such honors are bestowed upon individuals whose professional conduct and abilities have been thoroughly assessed within the context of the Delhi judicial system.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.