The Supreme Court on November 6 dismissed a petition challenging senior advocate designations granted by the Allahabad High Court in 2019. The plea questioned the validity of the designation process. By dismissing the challenge, the Supreme Court effectively affirmed that the Allahabad High Court's exercise of its power to designate senior advocates under Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961 was not legally infirm. The designations, conferred six years ago, now stand unchallenged.

Senior advocate designation is governed by Section 16 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which creates a two-tier bar: advocates and senior advocates. A High Court or the Supreme Court may designate an advocate as 'senior' if it is of the opinion that by virtue of ability, standing at the Bar, or special knowledge or experience in law, the advocate deserves such distinction. The process and its fairness were extensively examined by the Supreme Court in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017), where the Court held that designation must follow a transparent, objective procedure involving a Permanent Committee, a secretariat, and a point-based assessment system — moving away from pure judicial discretion. The 2017 judgment required High Courts to frame rules consistent with these guidelines. Challenges to designation processes typically arise when candidates allege arbitrariness, non-transparency, or violation of the Indira Jaising framework. When the Supreme Court dismisses such a challenge, it signals that the High Court's process, as scrutinised, did not violate constitutional or statutory standards. For CLAT PG aspirants, the key doctrinal points are: (1) the source of the designation power — Section 16, Advocates Act; (2) the constitutional underpinning — Article 145 for SC, Letters Patent/High Court rules for HCs; and (3) the Indira Jaising procedural framework as the controlling precedent for transparency in designations.