Delhi High Court upholds bar on retired judges from other States applying for Senior designation

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday upheld the rule which restricts retired judicial officers belonging to other States from applying for designation as Senior Advocates in Delhi [Sh Vijai Pratap Singh v Dehi High Court, through Registrar General & Anr]. .A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that before conferring the Senior Advocate designation, the High Court evaluates the person’s performance as a judge, their appraisal reports and other aspects of their personality. These details will be difficult to access for the High Court if the applicants are from States other than Delhi, the Court underscored. “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,” the Court noted. It added,“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. Thus, expecting the Judges of this Court to confer designation as a Senior Advocate upon retired judicial officers of HJS of states other than Delhi is not possible.”.The Court was dealing with a plea filed by one Vijai Pratap Singh seeking quashing of Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocates Rules, 2024 on the grounds of arbitrariness, discrimination and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. Singh is a retired judicial service officer who served in the Uttar Pradesh judiciary for over 36 years including 16 years in the Higher Judicial Service (HJS). He was then appointed as a judicial member of the National Company Law Tribunal and then elevated to technical member at the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. It was argued that Rule 9B was arbitrary and discriminatory as it restricts the privilege of submitting a request for designation as Senior Advocate to the retired judicial officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) with 10 years of service. .After considering the case, the Court reasoned that it would be onerous for Delhi High Court judges to benchmark the performances of retired judicial officers of other States. “It would be well nigh impossible for a Judge of this Court to have a fair evaluation of the performance and appraisals relatable to the service conditions in the absence of any documentation in that regard,” the Court noted. It further said that the distinction drawn between retired judges of DHJS and HJS of other States is based entirely on intelligible differentia and is ex facie not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. “The submission of the petitioner that his work, performance and services rendered as "Member Judicial" in the NCLT as also those rendered as "Member Technical of the NCLAT may be considered as fulfilling the eligibility criteria, is unmerited. This is for the reason that though the Tribunals may be falling within the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, however that would extend only to the judicial supervisory jurisdiction alone. Undoubtedly, neither the Members nor the Chairperson or any of their service conditions or service related issues fall within the administrative jurisdiction exercised by this Court unlike the other Courts and Tribunals, nor are available constitutionally with this Court,” the judgment said. The Court also rejected the challenge on the grounds of Article 19(1)(g) concluding that non-conferment of Senior Advocate designation cannot be termed as discriminatory or an impediment for an advocate to practice law. Therefore, the Court rejected the plea. .Petitioner Vijai Pratap Singh argued his case in person. He was assisted by advocates Utkarsh Kandpal and Bhanu Gupta. Advocates Dr Amit George, Arkaneil Bhaumik, Adhishwar Suri, Suparna Jain, Dushyant Kishan Kaul, Ibansara Syiemlieh, Rupam Jha and Medhavi Bhatia appeared for the Delhi High Court. .[Read Judgement]