CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has said that the designation ‘Senior Advocate’ is a coveted position from the point of view of the Bar and the society. A division bench comprising Justice CR Dash and Justice Pramath Patnaik said, “There should not be crowd in such a coveted position. Every Tom, Dick and Harry should not be brought to this position by whatever means permissible. Certain percentage of the total strength of a particular Bar should only be allowed to enter into this coveted position”.
While spelling out the parameters for designation of Senior Advocate the Bench said, “He should be an Advocate with towering personality, suave and gentle. His disposition towards the Court and his fellow counsels is impressive and known for his ready wit. Ask him any question on any law he has an answer with reasoning. His standing in the Bar is remarkable. He is a social factor in the society, he lives. He is humble, dignified, kind and a person with sobriety. He would however not come to stand in a queue to file an application for being designated as ‘Senior Advocate’”.
“Such a person being an asset to the profession, suo motu power should be reserved to be exercised for such a person only and such power should be given to High Courts”, the Bench stressed. The Supreme Court had framed the guidelines/norms for designating Senior Advocates in the Indira Jaising case. But the High Courts were not given suo motu power, the Bench observed.
The observation came on Monday while striking down sub-rule (9) of Rule- 6 of of High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocates) Rules, 2019 on the ground that it was beyond the scope of the guidelines/norms framed by the Supreme Court in the Indira Jaising case. The Full Court had exercised power under the sub-rule to unanimously resolve to designate five of the applicants as Senior
Advocates in the midst of the selection process on August 17, 2019. The Supreme Court in the Indira Jaisingh case had recognised two sources for drawing advocates for designating ‘Senior Advocates’. One - written proposal by the Judges and second - the application by the advocate concerned. There is no third source of picking an advocate by exercise of suo motu power, the Bench said.