“Dignity Undermined”: Yatin Oza Slams Gujarat HC’s New Senior Advocate Rules
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
Ahmedabad, September, 19, 2025-Senior Advocate Yatin Oza has raised serious objections to the recently notified Gujarat High Court (Designation of Senior Advocates) Rules, 2025, calling into question provisions that, in his view, diminish the dignity of senior counsel.
In a letter addressed to Gujarat High Court Advocates’ Association (GHCAA) President Mr. Brijesh Trivedi, Oza sharply criticized Rule 5 of the new rules, which mandates that designated senior advocates sign an undertaking encompassing nine conditions. He argued that the requirement imposes rigid constraints on senior advocates and undermines the special status and independence historically accorded to them.
Concerns Over Rule 5 Undertakingaccording to Oza, obliging senior advocates to formally bind themselves to nine conditions through an undertaking directly undermines their dignity and standing within the profession. While the content of these nine conditions was not outlined in detail, Oza highlighted that such stipulations are inconsistent with established practices in other jurisdictions, particularly the Supreme Court of India and the Bombay High Court, where no comparable undertaking is demanded from those enjoying senior designation.
(5) Undertaking: (1) An advocate who has been designated as “Senior Advocate” shall furnish an undertaking that he/she:
(a) will abide by the rules regulating the practice of Senior Advocate;
(b) will not draft or file pleadings in any Court and shall in all cases be assisted by another Advocate;
(c) shall not directly give consultation to any litigant and accept brief from the client;
(d) shall not file Vakalatnama or memo of appearance in any Court of Tribunal; however, the assisting advocate shall filè memo of intimation in the concerned Court intimating the appearance of Senior Advocate in the case so engaged; and
(e) shall neither appear for mentioning for any matters before the Court nor should he/she appear for getting adjournments;
(f) shall mentor and maintain minimum 2 to 3 young lawyers with less than 3 years of experience;
(g) Will not accept instructions to draft pleadings/affidavits, advise on evidence or do any drafting or work of analogous nature in any court or tribunal, or undertake any conveyancing work of any kind whatsoever. However, this prohibition shall not extend to settling any such matter as aforesaid in consultation with instructing advocate.
(h) Shall not be a standing counsel of Government, public sector undertaking, institution or local corporate body and if he/she holds such position, he/she shall resign or relinquish the same upon being designated as senior advocate.
Call for collective response emphasizing that the issue affects not just individuals but the stature of the institution of senior advocates, Oza urged the GHCAA leadership to urgently take up the matter before the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court.
“With profound respect to the rule making authority, T earnestly request you to take up this issue with Hon’ble the Chief Justice as a leader of the Bar for its deletion. The requirement of such an undertaking compromises the dignity and self-respect of the senior advocates, inasmuch as, what is sought to be conveyed by this undertaking, has to be read in-built.” Oza writes in his letter.
He suggested that the rules, in their current form, deserved thorough reconsideration in light of judicial traditions and comparative practices at the national level.
GHCAA President’s Reactionin response, GHCAA President Brijesh Trivedi acknowledged the concerns raised by Oza and assured that the matter would not be brushed aside. He indicated that a meeting of senior advocates of the Gujarat High Court will be convened shortly to deliberate on the issue collectively before taking it up with the Chief Justice.
The notification of the 2025 Rules comes in the wake of broader reforms across several High Courts aimed at ensuring greater transparency and accountability in the process of designating senior advocates. However, the Gujarat High Court’s prescription of a formal undertaking appears to have triggered unease within the Bar. Senior advocates argue that while discipline and responsibilities are traditionally inherent to their role, formalizing them through undertakings may reflect a lack of trust in the Bar’s senior-most members.
The upcoming consultations are expected to shape the GHCAA’s formal stand on the issue, setting up a likely engagement between the association, senior advocates, and the High Court administration in the weeks ahead.
