Reaffirmation of Suo-Motu Senior Designation & Abolition of the 100-Point Grid –
Supreme Court Commentary on Orissa High Court v. Banshidhar Baug, (2025 INSC 839)

1. Introduction

Orissa High Court v. Banshidhar Baug (2025 INSC 839) presented the Supreme Court of India with an opportunity to recalibrate the fast-evolving jurisprudence on the designation of Senior Advocates under section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Triggered by the Orissa High Court’s decision to invalidate rule 6(9) of its 2019 Senior Designation Rules—and consequently its suo-motu designation of five advocates—the petitions questioned whether a High Court may still, despite the Indira Jaising line of cases, confer the honour of Senior Advocate without recourse to the application-based, 100-point assessment process.

The Supreme Court not only restored the impugned rule and salvaged the designations, it went further by:

• Re-affirming that a Full Court of a constitutional court retains inherent suo-motu power to designate “exceptional and eminent” advocates.
• Holding that the 100-point grid (paragraph 73.7 of Indira Jaising - 1) had become unworkable and stands deleted.
• Directing all High Courts (and the Supreme Court itself) to frame fresh, locally attuned rules within four months, emphasising transparency, democratic voting in the Full Court, and yearly exercises.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Court, speaking through Justice R. Mahadevan and concurred by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, allowed the Special Leave Petitions filed by the High Court of Orissa. Key holdings are:

1. The Orissa High Court erred in striking down rule 6(9); the rule—now amended—comports with section 16 and with later clarifications in Indira Jaising - 2.
2. The suo-motu designations made on 19 August 2019 (respondents 5-9) are valid; having been re-evaluated under the Court’s interim directions, they need no further scrutiny.
3. Paragraph 73.7 (the 100-point grid and interview requirement) of Indira Jaising - 1, as modified in Indira Jaising - 2, is formally deleted; the grid is no longer mandatory.
4. High Courts must adopt new Rules, after stakeholder consultation, reflecting:
   • Final decision by the Full Court;
   • Democratic method (voting/secret ballot if needed);
   • Eligibility of 10+ years’ practice;
   • Annual designation exercise; and
   • No individual-judge recommendations.
5. Pending processes under the old regime may continue, but no new exercise shall commence until new rules are notified.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2017) 9 SCC 766 (Indira Jaising - 1) – The cornerstone judgment that introduced a Secretariat, a Permanent Committee and the 100-point grid to ensure transparency. The present Court appreciates the spirit but finds paragraph 73.7 to have over-bureaucratised the process.
• Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India, (2023) 8 SCC 1 (Indira Jaising - 2) – Clarified that the Full Court’s suo-motu power persists for “exceptional and eminent” advocates. The Orissa High Court did not have the benefit of this clarification; hence its order was per incuriam.
• Jitender @ Kalla v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2025 INSC 667 – A three-Judge Bench that, exercising the liberty given in paragraph 74 of Indira Jaising - 1, struck down the 100-point grid and laid fresh guidelines. The present decision explicitly “follows and concurs” with it.
• Jitender @ Kalla (Division Bench), 2025 INSC 249 – Raised concerns over interview-centric evaluation, nudging the matter to a larger bench. Though only persuasive, it framed the debate.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The reasoning unfolds in five logical moves:

1. Statutory Anchor in Section 16
   Section 16(2) confers power on the Supreme Court/High Court to designate deserving advocates “by virtue of his ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law”. This power is inherent, does not mandate an application and, therefore, can be exercised suo-motu.
2. Doctrine of per incuriam
   Because Indira Jaising - 2 had already saved suo-motu designations, the Orissa High Court’s finding that rule 6(9) was ultra vires fell for being decided without reference to a binding precedent—hence per incuriam.
3. Operational Reality & Grid Failure
   After several years of experimentation, the Court records that the 100-point, interview-heavy model produced embarrassment to senior, long-serving practitioners, did not ensure uniformity, and led to inconsistent marks—thus defeating the intended object.
4. Constitutional & Rule-making Powers
   The Court traces rule-making authority to Articles 145(1)(a) and 227(2)(b) of the Constitution, read with section 34 of the Advocates Act. This empowers each High Court to sculpt processes tailored to its local bar, within the broad constitutional values of fairness, transparency and objectivity.
5. Prospective & Transitional Management
   To avoid disruption, current selection cycles may run their course, but new applications must pause until updated rules issue— ensuring an orderly migration to the new framework.

3.3 Potential Impact

1. Restoration of Collegial Autonomy – Full Courts regain greater control, free from rigid metrics; this may accelerate designations for truly eminent counsel who might never apply.
2. Rule-making Wave – Every High Court must now draft or overhaul designation rules within four months. Expect a spate of consultations involving bar associations, state bar councils and Advocate Generals.
3. End of the 100-Point “Marks Culture” – Interview panels and publication points, which dominated discourse, lose primacy. Subjective but informed deliberation by the Full Court re-emerges.
4. Regularisation & Uniformity Challenges – Absence of a common yardstick may result in divergent criteria across States. Future litigation may test whether differential regimes offend Article 14.
5. Saturation & Balance – By requiring annual exercises and emphasising that the honour is exceptional, the Court seeks to prevent both stagnation (no designations) and inflation (too many designations).

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Suo-Motu” Designation: A High Court/Supreme Court may, on its own initiative (without any application), confer Senior Advocate status if it collectively feels an advocate’s stature warrants it.
• Full Court: A meeting of all judges of the court. For High Courts, this means every sitting judge; for the Supreme Court, the entire bench.
• 100-Point Grid (Now Deleted): A matrix from Indira Jaising - 1 allocating marks for years of practice, reported judgments, publications, pro-bono work and interview performance.
• Per Incuriam: A decision rendered in ignorance of a binding precedent or relevant statutory provision, and therefore lacking precedential value.
• Article 145 & 227: Constitutional provisions empowering the Supreme Court (145) and High Courts (227) to make rules governing their own procedure and that of subordinate courts.

5. Conclusion

Orissa High Court v. Banshidhar Baug decisively tilts the senior-designation compass back toward the collective, discretionary wisdom of constitutional courts, while preserving the transparency impulse introduced in 2017. By scrapping the rigid 100-point framework yet mandating democratised Full-Court voting and routine, rule-bound exercises, the Supreme Court charts a middle path—balancing institutional autonomy with accountability.

For practitioners, the decision lowers procedural barriers for deserving but publicity-averse counsel; for courts, it demands speedy rule-framing and disciplined yearly evaluations; and for legal scholars, it underscores the dynamic, self-corrective capacity of the common-law tradition. Ultimately, the judgment affirms that the laurel of Senior Advocate remains a privilege—granted sparingly, transparently, and always in service of the Bar’s noblest ideals.