ORISSA HIGH COURT AND OTHERS versus BANSHIDHAR BAUG AND OTHERS ETC.

ORISSA HIGH COURT AND OTHERS versus BANSHIDHAR BAUG AND OTHERS ETC.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judicial-side order of 10.05.2021 quashing Rule 6(9), holding that the Full Court's suo motu power to designate Senior Advocates is valid provided such designations adhere to the constitutional principles of fairness, transparency and objectivity; the Court concurred with Jitender @ Kalla, held the amended Rule 6(9) valid until fresh rules are framed, and affirmed the designations of Respondent Nos.5 to 9.

Parties
Petitioner: Orissa High Court and Others; Respondent: Banshidhar Baug and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (c) No.11605 11606 of 2021 / Disposed by the Supreme Court (judgment Dated 14 July 2025)
Outcome
Special Leave Petitions disposed of; the High Court's judicial-side order dated 10.05.2021 is set aside
Legal Topics
Designation of Senior Advocates, Suo Motu Powers of the Full Court, Transparency and Fairness in Designation, Indira Jaising Jurisprudence, Rule Making by High Courts
Advocates Act, 1961 High Court Rules Judicial Discipline Designation of Senior Advocates Suo Motu Powers of the Full Court Transparency and Fairness in Designation Indira Jaising Jurisprudence Rule Making by High Courts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Orissa High Court and Others

Petitioner

Banshidhar Baug and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (c) No.11605 11606 of 2021 / Disposed by the Supreme Court (judgment Dated 14 July 2025)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Full Court may exercise suo motu power to designate an advocate as Senior Advocate under Section 16(2) and Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019
  2. 2 Whether Rule 6(9) of the Rules, 2019 is ultra vires or inconsistent with the guidelines in Indira Jaising decisions and related clarifications

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judicial-side order of 10.05.2021 quashing Rule 6(9), holding that the Full Court's suo motu power to designate Senior Advocates is valid provided such designations adhere to the constitutional principles of fairness, transparency and objectivity; the Court concurred with Jitender @ Kalla, held the amended Rule 6(9) valid until fresh rules are framed, and affirmed the designations of Respondent Nos.5 to 9.

Court Disposition

Special Leave Petitions disposed of; the High Court's judicial-side order dated 10.05.2021 is set aside

Orders

  • Order passed by the High Court on its judicial side dated 10.05.2021 is set aside.
  • Designation of Respondent Nos.5 to 9 as Senior Advocates is held to be valid.