Delhi High Court Designates 85 Advocates as Senior Advocates Under Advocates Act

Kaustav Chowdhury
Jul 12
5 min read

The Delhi High Court has designated 85 advocates as Senior Advocates under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, following a Full Court Resolution dated July 9, 2026. The designations, drawn from a pool of 231 applicants, mark one of the largest batches of senior advocate designations in the Delhi High Court's recent history and include 11 women advocates.

The Selection Process and Committee Composition

The designation of Senior Advocates is governed by Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, which empowers the High Court to designate advocates who, in its opinion, have demonstrated ability, standing at the Bar, and special knowledge or experience in law. The process is not automatic or based on seniority alone; it requires a substantive assessment of an advocate's professional record, legal scholarship, and contribution to the Bar.

The Permanent Committee responsible for evaluating the applicants comprised Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice V. Kameswar Rao, Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, Delhi High Court Bar Association President N. Hariharan, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, and Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain. This composition reflects the established practice of including representatives from the judiciary, the Bar, and the government's law officers to ensure a balanced evaluation.

Of the 231 applicants, 86 qualified under the Committee's criteria. The Full Court then considered these 86 candidates and cleared 85 for designation. The near complete acceptance of the Committee's recommendations suggests a high degree of consensus on the candidates' qualifications.

Legal Framework: Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act

Section 16 of the Advocates Act creates a two-tier classification of advocates: Senior Advocates and other advocates. Sub-section (1) creates these two classes of advocates, while sub-section (2) empowers both the Supreme Court and every High Court to designate an advocate as a senior advocate with his consent. The designation carries both prestige and practical consequences. Senior Advocates are subject to specific rules of conduct: they cannot appear without a briefing advocate, they cannot accept instructions directly from clients, and they are held to a higher standard of professional responsibility.

The Supreme Court has, in multiple decisions, laid down guidelines for the designation process. The assessment typically considers the number of years of practice, the complexity and importance of cases handled, reported judgments in which the advocate has appeared, academic contributions, and the overall reputation at the Bar. While there is no rigid formula, the process is intended to identify advocates whose practice and scholarship set them apart from the general body of practitioners.

Gender Representation: 11 Women Among the Designees

A notable feature of this batch is the designation of 11 women advocates as Senior Advocates. While the legal profession in India has historically been male dominated at its upper echelons, the inclusion of 11 women in a single batch represents a meaningful step. The proportion, roughly 13 percent of the total designees, while still below parity, reflects a gradual shift in the composition of the senior Bar.

The issue of gender diversity in senior advocate designations has been a subject of discussion within the legal community. Several High Courts and the Supreme Court have made conscious efforts to ensure that the designation process does not inadvertently disadvantage women practitioners, who may face structural barriers including interrupted careers and limited access to briefing networks. The Delhi High Court's current batch suggests that these concerns are being taken into account, though the broader question of systemic parity remains a work in progress.

Practical Implications of Senior Advocate Designation

The designation as Senior Advocate carries significant practical consequences. Under the rules applicable to Senior Advocates, they occupy a distinct position in the courtroom hierarchy. They are typically heard first on matters where they appear, they are entitled to wear a different gown, and their opinions on legal matters carry considerable weight. From a client's perspective, engaging a Senior Advocate signals that a matter is of sufficient complexity or importance to warrant the most experienced counsel.

However, the restriction on direct client instructions means that Senior Advocates must work through an Advocate on Record (in the Supreme Court) or a briefing advocate (in the High Courts). This creates a collaborative model of practice where the Senior Advocate provides specialized argumentation skills while the briefing advocate manages the case, prepares documentation, and maintains the client relationship. The system is designed to ensure that the senior members of the Bar focus on their core function of legal argumentation while the administrative aspects of litigation are handled by other practitioners.

The Broader Debate on Designation Criteria

The process of designating Senior Advocates has been the subject of considerable judicial and academic debate over the years. Critics have argued that the process can be opaque and that the criteria, while nominally objective, leave significant room for subjective assessment. The Supreme Court addressed some of these concerns in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India (2017), where it directed that the process be made more transparent and structured.

The Delhi High Court's current process, which involves a Permanent Committee with defined membership and a Full Court vote, reflects these transparency requirements. The fact that 231 applications were received and only 86 cleared the Committee's criteria, with 85 ultimately designated by the Full Court, suggests a selective process with a clear attrition rate at each stage. The near unanimity between the Committee's recommendations and the Full Court's decision indicates institutional confidence in the evaluation process.

For advocates aspiring to the designation, the key takeaway from this batch is that the process, while competitive, is functioning and accessible. The inclusion of advocates from diverse practice areas and backgrounds indicates that the Committee considers a broad range of legal expertise rather than limiting designations to practitioners in a few high profile areas of law.

Key Takeaways

1. The Delhi High Court designated 85 advocates as Senior Advocates through a Full Court Resolution dated July 9, 2026, selecting them from 231 applicants under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961. 2. The Permanent Committee, comprising CJ Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice V. Kameswar Rao, Justice Nitin Wasudeo Sambre, DHCBA President N. Hariharan, ASG Chetan Sharma, and Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain, recommended 86 candidates, of whom 85 were cleared by the Full Court. 3. The batch includes 11 women advocates, reflecting a gradual improvement in gender representation at the senior Bar. 4. Senior Advocate designation carries both prestige and restrictions: designees cannot accept instructions directly from clients and must work through a briefing advocate. 5. The selection process reflects the transparency guidelines set down by the Supreme Court, with a defined committee structure, clear criteria, and Full Court oversight.