Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Friday (August 1) rejected a petition challenging a rule of the Delhi High Court which prohibits retired judges of other States from applying for senior advocate designation in Delhi.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by Vijai Pratap Singh challenging the Delhi High Court's judgment, which had upheld the rule in question.

The challenge was to Rule 9B of the High Court of Delhi Designation of Senior Advocate Rules, 2024. As per the Rule, only Judicial Officers who have retired from the Delhi Higher Judicial Service can apply to the Delhi High Court for designation as Senior Advocate. The petitioner had retired from the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service.

The petitioner, appearing as party-in-person, before the Supreme Court, contended that Rule 9B has a "constitutional infirmity" as it created a "class within class".

"Why don't you apply to the Supreme Court? In Supreme Court, everybody can apply," CJI Gavai told the petitioner. Without entertaining the matter further, the bench proceeded to dismiss the petition.

The High Court said that expecting the Judges of the Delhi Court to confer designation as a Senior Advocate upon retired judicial officers of other states was not possible.

“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. 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,” the High Court said.

The High Court added that the distinction sought to be drawn between the retired judicial officers of DHJS and other States was based entirely on intelligible differentia and is, ex facie, not violative of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

Case : VIJAI PRATAP SINGH Vs DELHI HIGH COURT THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL | SLP(C) No. 15148/2025