REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 745 OF 2018

GOPAL JHA .....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF  INDIA .....RESPONDENT(S)

W I T H

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 772 OF 2018

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 844 OF 2018

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 917 OF 2018

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 854 OF 2018

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 975 OF 2018

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 947 OF 2018

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 941 OF 2018

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 998 OF 2018

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 997 OF 2018

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1063 OF 2018

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1058 OF 2018

A N D

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 1 of 39

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 959 OF 2018

J U D G M E N T

A.K. SIKRI, J.

The  petitioners  in  these  writ  petitions  are  the  practicing

advocates who also claim that they are regularly practicing and

appearing in the Supreme Court.  Some of them are advocates on

record (AOR), while others do not fall under this category.  They

are not designated senior advocates either and, therefore, can be

put in the category of ‘other advocates’/'non-advocate on record'.

All  these  petitioners  are  desirous  of  getting  a  chamber  in  the

Lawyers Chamber Block in the Supreme Court.

2) This Court,  on administrative  side,  has framed Supreme Court

Lawyers’  Chambers  (Allotment  and  Occupancy)  Rules

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Chamber Allotment Rules') which

govern  the  procedure  for  allotment  of  chambers  within  the

compound of Supreme Court.  These rules lay down the eligibility

criteria for allotment of chambers.  In accordance with these rules,

the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India (CJI) has also constituted the

Judges' Allotment Committee.  It comprises of Hon’ble Judges of

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 2 of 39

this  Court,  nominated by CJI.   There is  another Committee as

well, which is headed by the Attorney General for India and office

bearer of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) as well as

Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association (SCAORA).  On

the basis of recommendations of the Allotment Committee(s), the

CJI ordinarily allots chambers to the advocates.

3) In the year 1995, a recommendation was made by the Allotment

Committee for allotment of chambers to AOR, non-advocates on

record  (other  advocates)  and  senior  advocates  in  the  ratio  of

7:2:1.  This recommendation was accepted by the CJI on August

29, 1995.  Since then, allotment is made in the aforesaid ratio to

the aforesaid three categories of advocates.   

4) Relevant Chamber Allotment Rules, with which we are concerned

in these petitions, may be reproduced below:

“2.   Allotment  of  Chambers  shall  be  made  by  a Committee appointed by the Chief Justice of India and all such allotments shall be subject to the approval of the Chief Justice of India.

3.  Allotment shall be made to such advocates of the Supreme  Court  as  are  members  of  the  Supreme Court  Bar  Association  who regularly  practice  in  the Supreme Court and who reside in Delhi or New Delhi.

4. Allotment  of  chambers  to  applicants,  who  are members of the Supreme Court Bar Association, shall

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 3 of 39

be made in the following order:

(i) Advocates-on-Record  who  are  regularly practising in this Court;

(ii) Non Advocates-on-Record resident in Delhi/New Delhi and who are mainly and regularly practising in this Court; and

(iii) Senior  Advocates  resident  in  Delhi/New  Delhi and who are  mainly  and regularly  practising  in  this Court.

Provided, however, that allotment shall be made in  accordance  with  the  roster  maintained  in  the following order:

The first four vacancies be allotted to Advocates- on-Record, the fifth vacancy to the Non Advocates-on- record,  sixth,  seventh  and  eighth  vacancies  to Advocates-on-Record,  ninth  vacancy  to  the  Non Advocates-on-Record  and  tenth  vacancy  to  Senior Advocates  and  the  cycle  shall  be  repeated  in  the above order.   

xx xx xx

18. The Chief  Justice may in  his  discretion cancel any allotment where an allottee infringes any condition of  allotment  or  violates  any  rule  governing  the allotment or for any other reason.

xx xx xx

20. The allotment shall terminate:

(a) On its cancellation by the Chief Justice of India;  or

(b) On its surrender by the allottee concerned; or

(c) On the allottee failing to pay the licence fee and other charges for the two successive months; or

(d) On the allottee ceasing to be a member of the

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 4 of 39

Supreme Court Bar Association; or

(e) On the allottes’ name being removed from the Roll of a State Bar Council; or

(f) On an allottee of a chamber not complying with the orders of the Allotment Committee, as approved by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India; or

(g) On the death of an allottee; or

(h) On the allottee being elevated to the Bench of the High  Court/Supreme Court.

Provided, however, that the allottees’ name shall be put first in the respective category of the waiting list, if  such member on his/her retirement joins back the practice and is made active member of Supreme Court  Bar  Association  on  his/her  application  for allotment.   

xx xx xx

23.  The Chief Justice of India may from time to time make such amendments and additions to these Rules as may be necessary and expedient.

24. If any question arises as to the interpretation of these Rules, the decision of the Chief Justice of India shall be final.”

5) It  may  be  mentioned  that  the  allotment  to  these  chambers  is

made on the availability thereof and, at that time, applications for

allotment of chambers are invited.  This exercise was conducted

last time in the year 2004.  Thereafter, i.e. after a gap of thirteen

years,  the  Supreme  Court  invited  applications  for  allotment  of

Lawyers’ chambers on October 31, 2017 and May 16, 2018 vide

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 5 of 39

Notice  inviting  applications  where  eligibility  criteria  was  also

stipulated.   In  the  notice  dated  October  31,  2017,  following

eligibility criteria was mentioned:

“Online  Applications  are  hereby  invited  from Senior Advocates,  Advocates-on-Record  who are  members of the Supreme Court  Bar Association and fulfill  the following  eligibility  criteria  for  updating  the  existing Panels for allotment of Lawyers Chambers:

1. SENIOR ADVOCATES

(a) Who are mainly  and regularly  practising in the Supreme Court.

(b) Who  must  have  minimum  of  50  appearances (Admission  and  regular  hearing  matters  excluding I.A.s/Cr.M.P.s)  each  year  for  any  two  consecutive years  between  01.06.2011  and  30.06.2016. (Registrar’s Court Appearance shall not be taken into consideration).

(c) Subject  to  the  above  two  requirements  being complied with, the allotment shall be made based on priority of the date of their being designated as Senior Advocate.

2. ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD

(a) Who must have filed (or entered appearances on behalf of  respondents) on an average 20 cases per annum  (i.e.  admission/regular  matters  and  not I.A.s/Cr.M.Ps and Government Filing) in the course of any two consecutive years between 01.06.2011 and 30.06.2016 (a batch of  cases shall  be treated as a single case).

(b) Subject  to  the  above  requirements  being complied with, the allotment shall be made according to the date of seniority i.e. the date of registration as AOR.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 6 of 39

3.  JUNIOR  ADVOCATE  (NON  ADVOCATE-ON- RECORD)

(a) Who are mainly  and regularly  practising in the Supreme Court.   

(b) Who  must  have  put  in  not  less  than  fifty appearances (Admission and regular hearing matters excluding I.As. and Cr.M.Ps.) each year for any two consecutive  years  between  01.06.2011  and 30.06.2016.

(c) Subject  to  the  above  two  requirements  being complied with, the seniority of such persons shall be based on the date of their present admission to the active  membership  of  the  Supreme  Court  Bar Association.”

6) As is clear from the above, one of the eligibility conditions for AOR

was filing of twenty cases per annum in the course of any two

consecutive years between June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016 and

for  other  advocates,  50  appearances  each  year  for  any  two

consecutive  years  between  June  01,  2011  to  June  30,  2016.

Further, as far as seniority is concerned, in respect of AOR, it was

to be from the date of registration as AOR.  For other advocates,

seniority  is  to  be based on the  date  of  their  admission  to  the

active membership of SCBA.  For senior advocates, allotment is

to be made on priority on th date of their  being designated as

senior advocates.   

7) Some advocates including the petitioners herein felt aggrieved by

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 7 of 39

one  or  the  other  eligibility  conditions,  depending  upon  the

category in which they fall.  They sent representations to SCBA as

well as Secretary General, Supreme Court of India, requesting for

change of criteria for eligibility of allotment of chambers.  Specific

grievance  was  with  respect  to  the  fixation  of  block  period

between  June  01,  2011  to  June  30,  2016  for  which  the

requirement of filing and/or appearance has to be fulfilled.  As per

the  petitioners,  the  matter  was  dealt  with  by  the  Chamber

Allotment Committee headed by the Attorney General and some

amendments  were  carried  out.   On  that  basis,  SCBA issued

circular  for  its  members  on  March  15,  2018  mentioning  the

changes, accepted by the Chamber Allotment Committee.  This

circular reads as under:

“The Letter dated 09.01.2018 was discussed at length in  today’s  Chambers  Allotment  Committee  Meeting and  the  recommendations  made  therein  have  been accepted  by  the  Committee  to  the  extent  detailed below:

(i) Calendar Year now will be January to December instead of June to May.

(ii) The  period  of  eligibility  for  filing/appearances shall be from 01.01.2004 to 31st December 2017 (Two consecutive years).

(iii) Self  Attested  proceedings  print  out  from  the website  i.e.  www.sci.gov.in  shall  be  sufficient compliance for consideration for Chambers Allotment, instead of certified copy.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 8 of 39

(iv) Self  Attested  proceedings  shall  be  filed  along with prescribed notarized format (Registry shall inform the format in due course).

(v) Complete set of application in physical form be submitted in the Registry besides online applications which may be submitted by the applicants, if they so opt.

(vi) Filing of Government cases is also included as eligibility  criteria  for  Central  Government  as  well  as State Government Standing Counsels.

(vii) Interlocutory Application (I.A.)  or  Criminal  Misc. Petitions  (Crl.M.P.)  are  also  included  towards appearance as well as filing, as the case may be.

(viii) Further,  in  case  of  Company  of  two  or  more AORs, all AOR partners will separately be entitled for allotment  of  Chambers  with  separate  set  of  cases (with the consent of other partners that they shall not use  the  same  set  of  cases  for  their  individual allotment).

(ix) Members who were Voters of SCBA from 2012 till  the  last  election  i.e.  December,  2017,  based  on B.D.  Kaushik’s  Judgments  passed  by  the  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, shall also be entitled to apply for Chambers Allotment (in any year within the above mentioned period).

(x) Fresh Vakalatnama after obtaining NOC from the previous/earlier AOR shall also be counted separately for the subsequent AOR.

(xi) Filing of Caveat is not to be counted.

(xii) The use of word “Junior Advocate” for Non AOR shall  not  be  used  in  any  proceeding/notification. Categories may be referred to as “Senior Advocate”, “Advocate on Record” and “Advocate”.

(xiii) Further time has been extended for submission of  applications  for  Chambers  Allotment  till  30th April

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 9 of 39

2018. (Notification shall be issued in due course).

(xiv) Appearance  before  Mediation  Committee  shall not be counted.”

8) However, the opinion of the Judges' Allotment Committee was at

variance  with  some  of  the  aforesaid  suggestion.   It  was

considered at the appropriate level and a decision was taken.

9) Thereafter, revised notice dated May 16, 2018 was issued by the

Administration General Branch of the Supreme Court for inviting

applications for allotment of Lawyers Chambers and the eligibility

criteria for three category of advocates was stated in the following

terms:

"1. SENIOR ADVOCATES

(a) Who are  mainly  and  regularly  practising  in  the Supreme Court.

(b) Who  must  have  minimum  of  50  appearances (Admission  and  regular  hearing  matters  excluding I.A.s/Cr.M.P.s save and except interim applications in Public  Interest  Litigations  which  are  *substantive applications  and  decided  by  the  Court  and  such petitions  like  Special  Leave  Petitions  filed  with applications  for  condonation  of  delay  and  listed  in Court  with Diary Number and disposed of  with diary number  by  the  Court)  each  year  either  for  any  two consecutive  years  between  01.06.2011  and 30.06.2016  or  for  any  two  non-consecutive  years between  01.06.2011  and  30.06.2016  provided  the Advocate/Applicant  concerned  availing  the  option  of appearances  during  two  non-consecutive  years  has been  on  the  Voters’  list  of  Supreme  Court  Bar Association  for  the  entire  block  period.   (Registrar’s

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 10 of 39

Court  Appearance  shall  not  be  taken  into consideration).

(c) Subject  to  the  above  two  requirements  being complied with, the allotment shall be made based on priority of the date of their being designated as Senior Advocate.

2. ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD

(a) Who must have filed (or entered appearances on behalf  of  respondents)  on an average 20 cases per annum  (i.e.  admission/regular  matters  and  not I.A.s/Cr.M.Ps and Government Filing save and except interim applications in Public Interest Litigations which are *substantive applications and decided by the Court and such petitions  like  Special  Leave Petitions  filed with applications for condonation of delay and listed in Court  with Diary Number and disposed of  with diary number  by  the  Court)  each  year  for  any  two consecutive  years  between  01.06.2011  and 30.06.2016  or  for  any  two  non-consecutive  years between  01.06.2011  and  30.06.2016  provided  the Advocate/Applicant  concerned  availing  the  option  of filing during two non-consecutive years has been on the Voters’ list of Supreme Court Bar Association for the  entire  block  period  (a  batch  of  cases  shall  be treated as a single case).

(b) Subject  to  the  above  requirements  being complied with, the allotment shall be made according to the date of seniority i.e. the date of registration as AOR.

3.  NON-ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD

(a) Who are  mainly  and  regularly  practising  in  the Supreme Court.   

(b) Who  must  have  put  in  not  less  than  fifty appearances (Admission and regular hearing matters excluding I.As. and Cr.M.Ps. save and except interim applications  in  Public  Interest  Litigations  which  are *substantive  applications  and  decided  by  the  Court and such petitions  like  Special  Leave Petitions  filed

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 11 of 39

with applications for condonation of delay and listed in Court  with Diary Number and disposed of  with diary number  by  the  Court)  each  year  either  for  any  two consecutive  years  between  01.06.2011  and 30.06.2016  or  for  any  two  non-consecutive  years between  01.06.2011  and  30.06.2016  provided  the Advocate/Applicant  concerned  availing  the  option  of appearances  during  two  non-consecutive  years  has been  on  the  Voters’  list  of  Supreme  Court  Bar Association for the entire block period.

(c) Subject  to  the  above  two  requirements  being complied with, the seniority of such persons shall be based on the date of  their  present admission to the active  membership  of  the  Supreme  Court  Bar Association.

*(For  illustration,  substantive  applications  may  be referred  to  such  interim  applications  by  the  project proponent or the applicant itself as are filed in Public Interest  Litigation  entitled  ‘T.N.  Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors.’ and decided by the Court as Such)”

10) As demand of  the advocates,  particularly with respect to block

period  was  not  met,  the  SCBA took  up  the  matter  again  by

addressing communication dated July 18, 2018 to CJI wherein it

was  stated  that  following  provisions  pertaining  to  allotment  of

chambers were not incorporated in the notice dated May 16, 2018

which  was  issued  for  inviting  applications  for  allotment  of

chambers:

“1. Eligibility of Advocates who had requisite number of  filing/appearances from Calendar  year  January  – December  2004 to  December  2017 instead of  May 2011 to June 2016.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 12 of 39

2.  Requisite Calendar year shall be 1st January to 31st

December instead of filing/appearance year 1st July to 30th June.

3.   Number  of  filing  by  Advocates-on-Record  of Government/State  Cases  shall  be  counted  for  the purpose of eligibility criteria.

4. Non-Advocates-On-Record  satisfying  the appearances criteria, becoming Advocates-On-Record in 2016 onwards not satisfying the filing criteria in less than 2 years, be included in the panel of Advocates- On-Record in order of their seniority as  Advocate-On- Record.

5. Similarly,  AORs  and  Non-AORs  subsequently designated as  Senior Advocates from 2016 onwards, satisfying  the  eligibility  norms  as  Advocates-On- Record/Non Advocates-On-Record be included in the panel  of  Senior  Advocates  in  chronology  of  being designated as Senior Advocate.”   

11) Some of the petitioners herein also made representations to the

Supreme Court raising their specific grievances qua the aforesaid

notice dated May 16, 2018.  As per them, since their grievance

have not been redressed, these petitions have been filed.   

12) At this stage, we may mention in tabular form, the grievances,

which are made by each of the petitioners in these writ petitions:

Sl. No. Cause Title Relief  Sought 1 Gopal  Jha,  WP(C)  No.

745/2018 Change  of  block  period  from 01.06.2011-30.06.2016  to 01.01.2005  to  17.10.2017/ 16.05.2018.

2 Anirudh  Sanganeria, WP(C) No. 772/2018

Calendar  year  to  be  taken  as January-December instead of June

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 13 of 39

to  June  and  the  cut-off  period  of eligibility  for  filing  appearances  to be modified to 31.12.2017 instead of 30.06.2016.

3 Kumar  Ranjan,  WP(C) No. 854/2018

Change  of  block  period  from 01.06.2011-30.06.2016  to 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2017.

4 V.  Shyam  Mohan, WP(C) No. 844/2018

Challenged  Clause  3  of  the Lawyers Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules as it violates of Article 14, 19(1)(c) and Article 19(1) (g)  as  it  mandates  that  applicant should be a member of SCBA.

5 Sahdev  Singh,  WP(C) No. 941 of 2018

Take into consideration period from 01.01.2004  –  31.05.2011  in  the Block Period.

6 Shirin  Khajuria,  WP(C) No. 917/2018

(i)  AOR  should  be  permitted  to apply in the category of Non-AOR. (ii) Third category to be renamed as Advocate.

7 V. Mohana, WP(C) No. 997/2018

Extend  cut-off  date  from 31.06.2016  and  in  the  alternative quash notice dated 16.05.2018, on the  ground  that  Clause  3B  is violative of Article 14 and 19.

8 R.K. Singh, WP(C) No. 975/2018  

Block  date  to  be  taken  as 01.01.2004 – 31.12.2017

9 Jaikriti S. Jadeja & Ors., WP(C) No. 947/2018

Cut-off  period  be  extended  till 31.12.2017.  

10 M.R.  Shamshad, WP(C) No. 998/2018

Quashing  of  Condition  2(a)  of revised  notice  inviting  applications for allotment of Lawyers Chambers dated 16.05.2018.

11 Vikram  Gulati,  WP(C) No. 1063/2018  

(i)  Change  of  block  period  from 01.06.2011-30.06.2016  to 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2017. (ii)  To not insist on the condition of his  name  being  on  voters  list  of SCBA and  to  include  NCR to  the place of residence. (iii)   Calendar  year  to  be  from

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 14 of 39

January  to  December  instead  of June to May and the cut-off period be extended till 31.12.2017.

12 Divyesh  Pratap  Singh, WP(C) No. 1058/2018

Cut-off  period  be  extended  till 30.08.2018.  

13) From the aforesaid,  it  can  be  seen that  following  issues  have

been raised in these writ petitions:

(i) Change  of  Block  Period:  Notice  dated  May  16,  2018

mentions the block period from June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016.

Different petitioners have suggested different block periods which

are: (a) block period should be January 01, 2005 to October 17,

2017/May 16, 2018; (b) January 01, 2005 to December 31, 2017;

(c) Period from January 01, 2004 to May 31, 2011 should also be

taken into consideration; and (d) January 01, 2004 to December

31, 2017.   

(ii) Calendar year mentioned in notice dated May 16, 2018 is

from June to June.  The suggestion is that it should be taken as

January to December.

(iii) Clause 3 of the Allotment Rules as per which allotment can

be made to those advocates only who are members of SCBA is

challenged inter alia by contending that apart from SCBA, there is

an association of AOR as well, known as SCAORA and it should

be sufficient when a person is a member of SCAORA.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 15 of 39

(iv) Requirement of minimum filings of AOR and appearances

by senior advocates and other advocates is also questioned.   

Main contention in this behalf is that, in the year 2004,

when the applications were invited, the requirement was different

and it should not be changed.

(v) An incidental issue is also raised as to whether Supreme

Court should invite the applications for allotment of chambers by

issuing  specific  notices  from  time  to  time  or  it  should  be  a

continuous process.   

14) Notices in these petitions were issued.  Registrar, Supreme Court

of India has filed reply affidavits in some of these writ petitions

which  cover  all  the  issues  raised.   It  is,  inter  alia,  stated  that

Chamber Allotment Committee consisting of the learned Attorney

General  for  India,  as  a  Chairman  and  the  Presidents,  Vice-

Presidents  and  Hony.  Secretaries  of  SCBA and  SCAORA as

Members, in its meeting held on November 18, 2015, approved

the  draft  notification  inviting  applications  for  empanelment  of

lawyers for allotment of chambers vide Agenda Item No. 10.  Vide

this  resolution,  it  was,  inter  alia, agreed  that  the  block  period

should be from January 01, 2009 to December 31, 2014.  Soon

after  the  aforesaid  recommendations,  a  number  of

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 16 of 39

letters/representations from the advocates were received by the

Registry praying for change in the block period.  The Chamber

Allotment Committee headed by the learned Attorney General for

India  again  convened  a  meeting  on  May  11,  2016  and  after

consideration,  the requests of  the advocates vide Agenda Item

No. 2,  inter alia, resolved in connection with the block period as

under:

“The Committee perused the aforesaid letters vis-a-vis the  Office  Report  and  resolved  that  since  the  year 2015 has already gone by, the earlier approved Block Period  (01.01.2009  to  31.12.2014)  may  now  be changed  to  new  Block  Period  (01.01.2010  to 31.12.2015) so that more and more eligible Advocates may apply.”

15) The aforementioned recommendations were placed for approval

and orders before the Hon'ble Judges Committee for approving

allotment of Lawyers Chambers and thereafter, were also placed

before  the  CJI.   The  comments  made  by  the  Registry  in  this

regard were also placed before the Hon'ble Judges Committee on

July 11, 2016.  Considering the comments made by the Registry

that chambers in Pragati Maidan will be available sometime in the

end of 2017 and if block period is confined to the year 2015 as

resolved  by  the  Chamber  Allotment  committee  headed  by  the

learned Attorney General for India, advocates who may complete

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 17 of 39

minimum number of appearances after 2015 may not apply for

allotment and, therefore, it was submitted for consideration, if the

block period should be upto December 31, 2015 or June 30, 2016

or some other dates.   

16) The Hon'ble Judges Committee, inter alia, recommended that the

block period may be changed so as to make it from June 01, 2011

to June 30, 2016.   The same was also approved by the then CJI

vide order dated July 28,  2016.  Accordingly,  notification dated

October 31, 2017 inviting online application for empanelment of

Lawyers for allotment of chambers was issued.   

17) Since, representations were received against this notification also

from certain advocates and even SCBA.  These representations

were placed before Chamber Allotment Committee headed by the

learned Attorney General for India in its meeting dated March 15,

2018  wherein  recommendation  was  made,  as  already  noted

above.  It was placed before the Judges Committee on March 27,

2018. The Judges Committee, however, did not accept the same

in its entirety.  The earlier block period already notified i.e. June

01, 2011 to June 30, 2016 was recommended to be retained as

unaltered  while  some of  the  recommendations  were  accepted.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 18 of 39

However,  before  the  aforesaid  recommendation  of  the  Judges

Committee  could  be  considered  by  the  CJI,  the  SCBA again

reiterated its request.  Because of this reason, Judges Committee

again assembled on May 9, 2018 wherein hearing was given to

the  President  and  Hony.  Secretary  of  SCBA.   The  Judges

Committee, however, did not agree to change the block period,

but recommended the following changes:

“In  addition  to  the  requirement  of  having  minimum number  of  filings  and  or  appearances  in  two consecutive years in the block period of five preceding years, an applicant who otherwise fulfills the criteria of requisite number of filings and or appearances even in two  non-consecutive  years  in  the  block  period  of preceding five years shall also be eligible provided he was  on  the  voters’  list  of  Supreme  Court  Bar Association for the entire block period of five years.”

“...that such petitions which are disposed of with diary number  by  the  Court  may  also  be  reckoned  for computing  the  requisite  number  of  filings  and  or appearances.”

“...that  interim  applications  in  Public  Interest Litigations  which  are  substantive  applications  and decided by the Court as such shall also be counted towards  the  requisite  number  of  filings  and  or appearances.”

18) This led to the issuance of the revised notice dated May 16, 2018.

SCBA made another representation dated July 18, 2018.  In the

meantime,  certain writ  petitions were also filed in  which notice

was  issued.   Accordingly,  Judges  Committee  resolved  in  its

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 19 of 39

meeting held on July 30, 2018 as under:

“The Committee understands that the issue regarding allotment of chambers is pending consideration before the Bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri.   Following  order  was  passed  by  the  Bench today:-

‘Issue notice, returnable in two weeks.

Dasti, in addition, is also permitted.

The  respondents  shall  endeavour  to  file  their  reply before the next day of hearing.

We are informed that 31.07.2018 is the last date for making  application  for  allotment  of  chambers.   The petitioners herein may make their applications which may  be  received/accepted  provisionally  and  kept separately.’

In the circumstances, the Committee feels it would be inappropriate to deal with the matter till  the pending matter is disposed of on the judicial side.”

19) On one hearing, when the matters came up before the Court, Mr.

Maninder Singh, learned ASG, appearing for the Supreme Court,

made a statement that he along with President, SCBA and office

bearers of SCAORA would deliberate on the issues raised and

shall try to arrive at a consensus.   

20) When the matters were taken up on October 4, 2018, the learned

ASG submitted note proposing the solution to the various issues.

The suggestion given in the said 'Note' are as under:

“1. … (i) The consideration of the request for allotment of

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 20 of 39

chambers to the members of SCBA belonging to the above mentioned all the 3 categories should be for all those  who  fulfil  individual  respective  criteria  in  the above  mentioned  3  categories  by  30  th   September, 2018.

(ii) In  other  words,  any  member  advocate,  who fulfils the requirement of 50 appearances per year by 30th September,  2018,  would  become  entitled  for submitting an application for allotment of chamber to the Registry  of  the Supreme Court  and every such application  shall  be  accepted.   The Registry  would consider a period of 730 days (a continuous period of 2 years) at any time before 30th September, 2018 and on  being  satisfied  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  relevant criteria, shall accept the application for consideration of allotment of chamber.

2. Similarly,  for  all  Member  AORs  who  wish  to submit  their  application  by  30.9.2018  would  be required  to  fulfil  minimum  of  20  filings  or  50 appearances in a period of one year for two years, would  have  to  satisfy  the  Registry  of  minimum 40 filings or 100 appearances in a period of 730 days of any  period  as  on  30th September,  2018.   Such applications would also be accepted by the Registry of the Supreme Court for allotment of chambers.  It is clarified  that  the  submission  of  application  for allotment of chamber by a member of the SCBA can be on any of the criteria for eligibility chosen by the concerned member.  In that, notwithstanding that the member is an AOR or a designated Sr. Advocate, the application for allotment of chamber can be submitted on any of the criteria, namely, criteria of eligibility for non-AOR, criteria for eligibility of AOR and criteria for eligibility of a Sr. Advocate.  However, the allotment of chamber to any such member shall be from the quota of 7:10 or 2:10 or 1:10, as the case may be, on the basis of the status held by the member in presenti.

3.  Similarly, this cut-off date of 30.9.2018 would apply to  the  category  of  Member  Senior  Advocates  for applying, with the criteria for that category.

4.  This cut-off date of 30.9.2018 shall be subject to

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 21 of 39

any modification which may be made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,  either in the hearing scheduled for 20.9.2018 or any date thereafter.  In other words, the last  cut-off  date  proposed  as  30.9.2018  would  get substituted by the date so decided by the Supreme Court.   The period of  730 days for fulfilment of the eligibility  criteria  in  the  above  mentioned  separate categories  of  advocates  shall  be  counted  from the last cut-off date in 2004 till 30th September, 2018 or any  other  date  which  may  be  decided  by  the Supreme Court.

5.  It is the firm suggestion on behalf of the SCBA that  the  process  for  lodging/submitting  applicatoins for allotment of chambers by Members of SCBA, in any of the above mentioned 3 categories, should be a continuous  process,  i.e.,  whenever  any  member  of the SCBA belonging to any of the 3 categories fulfils the  requirement  of  the  criteria  prescribed  for becoming  eligible  for  consideration  for  allotment  of chamber  by  the Supreme Court,  his/her  application shall  be  accepted  by  the  Registry.   This  would completely  eliminate  the  uncertainty  with  regard  to opening of  the period for  inviting such applications. The procedure/mechanism of accepting applications throughout the year, on continuous basis, is the norm which is being followed almost in every High Court. Adoption of such a mechanism/methodology of such a process to remain operative continuously would be beneficial  to  the  members  of  the  SCBA and would also remove possible anomalies and irritants in this entire process.

6. Insofar as the AORs are concerned who have acted as AOR for any State Government etc., filing for the respective State Government would also be taken towards fulfilment of the criteria for 20 filings annually.

7. Similarly,  all  those  Member  Advocates  (Non- AORs), who have remained with Government Panels, their appearances in the Government matters would also be counted for the fulfilment of  eligibility  of  50 appearances  in  a  year  for  becoming  eligible  for allotment of chambers.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 22 of 39

In both these cases, filings for the Government and/or appearances for the Government, filing of IAs and  appearances   in  IAs  shall  not  be  counted. Similarly,  appearances  before  the  Ld.  Registrar  or before the Hon’ble Chamber Judge would also not be counted.  

8. In relation to all  those Member Advocates who have already lodged/submitted their  applications for allotment of chambers as advocate (Non-AOR) on the basis of the criteria of 50 appearances in a given year for  2  years  and  have  now  qualified  in  the  AOR examination,  they  shall  be  held  to  be  eligible  for allotment of chambers in the AOR category and the allotment of chamber in their favour shall be only from the quota of 7:10 chambers meant for the AOR quota.

9. Similarly, all those Member Advocates who had submitted their applications for allotment of chambers at an earlier occasion, either in the category of AOR or in the category of Advocate (Non-AOR) and have been subsequently designated as Senior Advocates, they  shall  be  held  to  be  eligible  for  allotment  of chamber on those basis – 1:10 quota chambers for Senior  Advocates  and  shall  be  considered accordingly.  Any allotment of chamber to them will have to be allotment  from the quota of  1:10 in the Senior Advocates category, even when their eligibility for consideration for allotment of chambers had been achieved  either  as  an  AOR  or  as  an  advocate member of the SCBA in the non-AOR category.”

21) Insofar as challenge to Rule 3 of  the Allotment Rules,  namely,

pre-condition of being a member of SCBA before consideration of

allotment of chambers in any of the three categories is concerned,

it  is pleaded that  the same be retained as,  according to them,

there is no merit in the said contention.   

22) After hearing the counsel for the parties as well as Mr. Maninder

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 23 of 39

Singh, learned ASG and Mr. Vikas Singh, President, SCBA, we

deem it appropriate to accept the suggestions contained in Paras

1, 2, 3 and 6 to 9 of the aforesaid 'Note' of suggestions.

23) This leaves us to decide the following issues:

(a) Change of block period.

(b) Validity of condition of membership of SCBA contained in

Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules.

(c) Validity of condition of resident of an advocate in Delhi/New

Delhi contained in  Rule 3.   

24) Change  of  Block  Period:   We  have  already  accepted  the

suggestions 1, 2 and 3 of the Note.  The paragraph 4 of the Note,

however, mentions that period of 730 days for fulfillment of the

eligibility criteria shall be counted from the last cut-off date in 2004

till September 30, 2018.  This suggestion cannot be accepted as it

is  way too off  the mark and may have no connection with the

active practice requirement of an advocate, having proximity with

the date when the applications for allotment are invited.  It hardly

needs  to  be  emphasised  that  pre-requisite  for  allotment  of

chamber  is  that  the  concerned  advocate  should  be  in  active

practice.  That is why the eligibility criteria for member advocates

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 24 of 39

is the requirement of 50 appearances per year in the block year;

for  AORs,  it  is  minimum of  20  filings  or  50  appearances  in  a

period of one year for two years and minimum 40 filings or 100

appearances in a period of 730 days.  However, if the cut-off date

starts  from the  year  2004,  this  purpose  may  be  lost  in  many

cases, resulting in alloting the chambers to those who may be

non-active as of today.  There may be cases where a non-AOR or

AOR may fulfil conditions of appearances/filing in first 730 days

starting from the year 2004 i.e. during the year 2004-2005 and

thereafter he may not have any appearances or filings, or such

appearances/filings may be negligible.  Still he/she would become

entitled  to  allotment  of  chamber.   This  would  bring  in  such

advocates who may not be in active practice in recent past.  Such

a situation cannot be countenanced.  We, therefore, find rationale

in  the decision taken by the Judges'   Allotment  Committee for

fixing the block period from June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016 as

contained in the revised notice dated May 16, 2018 viz. fixing the

block  period  which  is  proximate  to  the  notice  for  making

application for the allotment.  Therefore, starting of cut-off date

from the year 2004 is unacceptable.   

25) Since, sometime has elapsed when the block period was fixed by

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 25 of 39

the Judges' Allotment Committee and we have extended the date

for making application, the only modification which can be done is

to put the block period from October 01, 2013 to September 30,

2018.  It is during this period the applicant shall have to satisfy the

criteria and appearances or filing as indicated above.   

26) We are also not accepting the suggestion given in Para 5 of the

Note  that  the  allotment  of  chambers  should  be  a  continuous

process.   There has been a consistent  practice  in  the past  of

inviting  applications  from  time  to  time  whenever  lawyers'

chambers  become  available  for  allotment.   It  should  be

maintained  as  there  is  no  reason  to  depart  from  the  same.

Otherwise, the purpose of fixing proximate block period shall also

get  defeated.   At  the  same  time,  we  also  find  that  last  such

applications  were  invited  in  the  year  2004  and  considerable

period has lapsed thereafter.  Therefore, in order to ensure that

such situation does not occur in future, we are of the opinion that

Notice inviting such applications should be at least once in three

years.

27) Validity of Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules:  As per this rule, the

membership  of  SCBA  is  essential  to  apply  for  allotment  of

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 26 of 39

chambers.  Those petitioners who have challenged the validity of

this  rule submit  that  this  eligibility  criteria  is  discriminatory and

violates the fundamental rights guaranteed to them under Articles

14,  19(1)(c)  and  19(1)(g)  of  the  Constitution.   Expanding  this

argument, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who appeared for writ

petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 844 of 2018 submitted that

SCAORA is also a represented body like SCBA and, therefore,

membership  of  anyone  of  these  bodies  should  be  enough  for

making  a  person  eligible  to  be  considered  for  allotment  of

chambers.  It was argued that SCAORA was also a vibrant body

which was formed for the welfare of AOR. Therefore, the measure

in  the  allotment  of  Lawyers’  Chambers  Rules  that  restricts

eligibility for allotment of chambers to members of the  SCBA and

excludes  those  who  are  members  only  of  the  SCAORA  is

manifestly  arbitrary.   Reliance  is  placed  in  this  regard  on  the

judgment  of  this  Court  in  Shayara  Bano  v.  Union  of  India1,

where it was held as follows:

“87.  The thread of  reasonableness runs through the entire fundamental rights chapter. What is manifestly arbitrary is obviously unreasonable and being contrary to  the  rule  of  law,  would  violate  Article  14.  Further, there is an apparent contradiction in the three-Judge Bench decision in McDowell [State of A.P. v. McDowell and Co.,  (1996)  3  SCC 709]  when it  is  said  that  a

1 (2017) 9 SCC 1

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 27 of 39

constitutional  challenge  can  succeed  on  the  ground that  a  law  is  “disproportionate,  excessive  or unreasonable”,  yet  such challenge would fail  on the very  ground  of  the  law  being  “unreasonable, unnecessary  or  unwarranted”.  The  arbitrariness doctrine  when applied  to  legislation  obviously  would not involve the latter challenge but would only involve a law being disproportionate,  excessive or otherwise being  manifestly  unreasonable.  All  the  aforesaid grounds,  therefore,  do  not  seek  to  differentiate between State action in its various forms, all of which are interdicted if they fall foul of the fundamental rights guaranteed to persons and citizens in Part  III  of  the Constitution.”

28) According to the petitioners, this provision violates Article 14 as

well as it created unreasonable classification.  The consequences

of this unreasonable classification would be as follows:

(i) As a result of the judgment of this Court in Supreme Court

Bar Association & Ors. v. B.D. Kaushik2, only certain members

of the SCBA are permitted to vote in elections, as they are treated

as  serious  and  regular  practitioners  in  the  Supreme  Court.

However,  Rule  3  of  the Allotment  of  Lawyers’ Chamber  Rules

makes no such distinction and, therefore, those members of the

SCBA who  are  ineligible  to  vote  in  their  own  association  are

eligible to be allotted chambers of the Supreme Court.

(ii) If an SCBA member were to be expelled for any reason, for

example, if an SCBA member did not participate in the call for an

2 (2011) 13 SCC 774

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 28 of 39

illegal strike by the SCBA on the grounds that it would be contrary

to the judgment of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Ex-Capt.

Harish Uppal  v.  Union of India & Anr.3, such a member would

be ineligible to apply for a chamber in the Supreme Court, whose

very judgment he/she has sought to adhere to.

(iii) The  petitioners  have  contended  that  the  allocation  of

chambers is a privilege afforded by the Supreme Court of India to

those advocates practicing before it.  When both the SCBA and

the SCAORA have been recognised as advocates’ associations

of equal importance, it would be inappropriate to extend such a

privilege  only  to  the  members  of  one  association  and  not  the

other.   

29) It was also submitted that such a classification that excludes the

association of those advocates as prescribed under Article 145(1)

(a)  of  the  Constitution  of  India  read  with  the  Supreme  Court

Rules, 2013 is unreasonable and has no rational nexus with the

object sought to be achieved, i.e., the allotment of chambers to

the  regular  practitioners  of  the  Supreme  Court.   Mr.

Sankaranarayanan went to the extent of contending that given the

role of AOR in the administration of justice by the Supreme Court,

3 (2003) 2 SCC 45

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 29 of 39

it was more important in nature than even SCBA. It was submitted

that AOR are given pre-eminence position as they:

(i) Undertake  an  examination  administered  by  the  Supreme

Court;

(ii) Are  the  only  advocates  authorised  to  act  on  behalf  of  a

client in the Supreme Court;

(iii) Adhere  to  strict  stipulations  regarding  office  location,

maintenance of accounts and filing of returns, unlike any other

class of advocates.

(iv) Are recognized as such by judgments of  this  Court  from

1964  onwards.   This  is  even  acknowledged  by  the  Chamber

Allotment Rules which earmarks nearly 70% of the chambers of

the AOR.

30) He  further  argued  that  the  impugned  Rule  amounts  to  a

compulsion for AOR to become a member of the SCBA, which

would make an inroad into the rights under Article 19(1)(c) of the

Constitution  of  India,  of  such  advocates  who  are  already

members  of  SCAORA  by  compelling  them  unreasonably  to

become members of another Court-affiliated organization.

31) Mr.  Vikas  Singh,  learned senior  counsel,  who appeared in  the

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 30 of 39

capacity as President of SCBA as well as Mr. Maninder Singh,

learned ASG defended Rule  3  of  the Allotment  Rules.   It  was

submitted that SCBA is an umbrella association which represents

the interests of all its members.  Membership of SCBA was open

to  all  advocates,  irrespective  of  their  category,  namely,  senior

advocates, advocates, AOR as well as other advocates.  It was

also argued that as a representative body for all the members, it

is SCBA which has discussions with the CJI and/or Judges on

various issues and problems which may occur from time to time,

to find mutual acceptable solution to such problems and issues.   

32) It was further argued that this fact of SCBA, being an umbrella

association, was even recognised by SCAORA itself which was

reflected in  the Rules and Regulations of  SCAORA.   Attention

was  drawn,  in  this  behalf,  to  Rule  4  of  the  said  Rules  and

Regulations  which  deals  with  admission  and  qualification  for

membership and prescribes that in order to become a member of

SCAORA,  it  is  necessary  to  have  the  membership  of  SCBA.

Relevant portion of this Rule reads as under:

“4.  … A. An advocate may be considered for enrolment as Member of the Association if -

(i) he is an Advocate-on-Record and Member of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 31 of 39

(ii) he undertake to subscribe to the objects of  the Association  and  abide  by  the  rules  and  regulations framed by the Association from time to time; and

(iii) he is considered suitable for Membership by the Executive Committee.”

33) Based on the aforesaid provisions, they argued that AOR cannot

be a member of SCAORA unless he is a member of SCBA and,

therefore, entire issue raised by the petitioners was academic in

nature,  since the contention of  the petitioners proceeds on the

basis that insofar as AOR is concerned, membership of SCAORA

should be sufficient.   

34) It was also submitted that nobody has any right to get allotment of

chamber,  much  less  a  fundamental  right  and,  therefore,  the

petitioners cannot invoke the provisions of  Articles 14,  19(1)(c)

and 19(1)(g)  of  the  Constitution.   Mr.  Vikas Singh,  in  support,

relied  upon the  judgment  of  this  Court  in  Vinay Balachandra

Joshi v. Registrar General, Supreme Court of India & Ors.4.  It

was  a  matter  pertaining  to  allotment  of  chambers  within  the

compound of the Supreme Court itself.  One of the contentions of

the petitioners therein was that not making available chambers to

the  AOR  within  the  Supreme  Court  compound  is  violative  of

4 (1998) 7  SCC 461

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 32 of 39

fundamental right  under Article 19(1)(g)  of  the Constitution and

this contention was rejected in the following manner:

“4.  We will first deal with the contention raised by the petitioners  in  Writ  Petitions  Nos.  883  and  1223  of 1990,  that  not  making  available  chambers  to  the Advocates-on-Record  within  the  Supreme  Court compound is violative of their fundamental right under Article  19(1)(g)  of  the Constitution.  It  was submitted that Article 19(1)(g) guarantees, inter alia, the right to practise any profession. Practising legal profession is thus a fundamental right. An Advocate-on-Record can exercise this fundamental right of his effectively only if he  is  provided  with  a  chamber  within  the  Supreme Court  premises.  Therefore,  to  make  a  chamber available to him is an integral part of his guaranteed fundamental  right.  We  see  no  substance  in  this contention.  Even if  we proceed on the basis  that  to practise as an advocate is a fundamental right, no right to  be  allotted  a  chamber  within  the  Court  premises follows  from it.  A legal  practitioner/an  advocate  can carry on his legal profession without a chamber. It is not necessary that he should have a chamber within the Court premises. That which merely facilitates the exercise of the fundamental right cannot be regarded as an integral part of that fundamental right. Far from being a fundamental right it  does not even have the status  of  a  right.  No law confers  such a right  on  a member of a legal profession nor such a facility has been accepted as a right  even otherwise.  Making a chamber available to a member of the legal profession practising in a court of law is really a facility provided to  him  by  the  Court.  This  is  the  true  nature  and character  of  the  claim  made  by  the  Advocates-on- Record,  not  giving  a  chamber  to  him  cannot  be regarded  as  violative  of  Article  19(1)(g)  of  the Constitution. It may be stated that neither the learned Attorney General nor Mr Nariman, Mr Venugopal and other Senior Advocates supported this contention and very  fairly  stated that  the view which  we are taking namely that it is a facility provided by the Court is the correct view.

5. As it is not a matter of right or legal obligation of the

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 33 of 39

Court  to  provide  the  facility  of  a  chamber  to  an advocate it would really be a matter of discretion of the Principal Judge of the Court to decide to whom and to what extent that facility should be extended when the same is available; and his only obligation would be to act in a fair and just manner and not arbitrarily. It may be proper for him to frame rules, appoint a committee and  fix  guidelines  for  the  purpose  of  allotment  of chambers; but the obligation is no higher than to act in a reasonable manner.  It  would be for  him to decide when, to whom, to what extent and on what terms and conditions he should allot chambers.”

35) Having  regard  to  the  existence  of  Rule  4  in  the  Rules  and

Regulations of SCAORA itself, the entire edifice of the petitioners

case stands demolished.  No doubt, SCAORA has its significant

position in this Court.  However, we are concerned with the issue

of  allotment of  chambers.   The petitioners have submitted that

members of SCAORA should be treated as sufficient eligibility for

allotment  of  chambers.   Yet,  in  order  to  become a member of

SCAORA,  as  per  Rule  4  of  the  Rules  and  Regulations  of

SCAORA itself,  an advocate  has to  be the member  of  SCBA.

Therefore, unless an advocate is an AOR and also a member of

SCBA,  he  cannot  become  the  member  of  SCAORA.   This

requirement itself accepts the position that SCBA is an umbrella

organisation and also recognises the vital role it plays.  Thus, the

argument based on Article 14 of the Constitution would be of no

avail.

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 34 of 39

36) The respondents are also correct in their submission that there is

no  fundamental  right  or  any  statutory  right  for  allotment  of

chambers in any court premises.  This aspect has already been

decided  in  Vinay  Balachandra  Joshi,  relevant  discussion

whereof  has  been  reproduced  above.   Further,  in  the  counter

affidavit  filed  on  behalf  of  respondent  No.  1,  significance  of

membership  of  SCBA is  highlighted  in  order  to  avail  various

facilities.  It is, inter alia, stated that facilities like Library, Parking,

Canteen, Medical etc. become available only to the members of

the Bar Association of the concerned courts and such a stipulation

is prevalent in almost every court in the country.  Counter affidavit

goes on to make the following averments:

“6.   It  is  respectfully  submitted  that  there  is  no fundamental and/or any statutory right much less any indefeasible  right  of  allotment  of  Chambers  in  any Court  premises.  It  may, however,  be submitted that each  Court  in  the  country  always  endeavours  to extend (within  its  resources and availability  of  place etc.)  maximum  facilities  to  the  Ld.  Advocates  for facilitating the process of administration of justice and for  making  it  more  efficient.   It  is  also  a  fact,  as observed  in  past  so  many  decades,  that  the  Ld. Advocates practicing at any Court - for a large number of reasons including for the better coordination with the Court authorities for achieving efficiency in the process of  administration of  justice,  do  form Bar  Association not  only  for  conducting  and  regulating  the  internal affairs of their Members but also for coordinating (as one  unified  class)  with  the  Court  authorities  for achieving and securing betterment  and improvement

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 35 of 39

of  the  justice  delivery  system at  any Court.   It  is  a matter  of  common  knowledge  that  such  Bar Associations are in existence, from the inception of the modern Court system itself and are active in their own sphere.   The Supreme Court  also has in  place,  the Supreme Court  Bar  Association and which is  taking care  of  the  interest  of  its  members  and  also coordinates with the authorities of the Supreme Court for  welfare  of  its  Members  and  also  for  further improvements  in  the  justice  delivery  system  at  the Supreme Court.   

xx xx xx

Without prejudice to the above, it is most respectfully reiterated  that  after  securing  enrolment  as  an Advocate  under  the  Advocates  Act,  1961  -  the  Ld. Advocates,  for  consideration  for  being  extended certain facilities at the respective Court premises, are made obliged to also obtain membership with the local Bar  Association,  which  also  provides  an  additional forum/mechanism (besides and in addition to the Court authorities  itself)  to  facilitate  and  regulate  the conduct/affairs of the Ld. Advocates practicing before any Court  of  law.   It  is  most  humbly  submitted that contentions to the contrary raised in the present Writ Petition  seeking  to  question  the  correctness  and validity of the above-mentioned Rule obliging the Ld. Advocates  to  secure  the  Membership  of  SCBA for consideration for extending the facility of allotment of Chamber is entirely valid and legal."

37) We,  therefore,  do  not  find  any  reason  to  interfere  with  the

requirement  of  being  a  member  of  SCBA  for  submitting

application for allotment of chambers.

38) Alternative  submission  of  the  petitioners  is  that  if  the  rule  is

upheld,  an  opportunity  should  be  given  to  those  members  of

SCAORA, who have not become the members of SCBA so far, to

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 36 of 39

apply and become the member of SCBA even now and on that

condition,  their  applications  for  allotment  of  chambers  be

entertained.  Insofar as this submission is concerned, once the

petitioners or other similarly situated persons become members of

SCBA,  they  can  make  such  a  request  to  the  Chambers

Committee  while  making  their  applications  for  allotment  of

chambers and it  will be for the Chambers Committee to take a

view thereupon.

39) Prescription of the requirement of resident in Delhi or New Delhi

in  Rule 3 of  the Allotment  Rules:   In  one of  the petitions,  this

provision is challenged.  It is submitted that there is no rationale in

prescribing the condition that an advocate to become eligible for

allotment of chamber should be a resident in Delhi or New Delhi.

Argument  was  that  in  last  few  years,  there  was  exponential

growth in the population of Delhi which,  inter alia,  necessitated

people to shift in areas nearby, like Noida or Ghaziabad in Uttar

Pradesh, Faridabad or Gurugram in Haryana.  It was submitted

that the only purpose for making the aforesaid provision was that

the  advocate  who  is  practicing  in  Supreme  Court  is  readily

available and, therefore, he is living in the vicinity of the Supreme

Court.   It  was  submitted  that  some  of  the  areas  which  are

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 37 of 39

mentioned above are  closer  to  the Supreme Court  than  many

areas  in  Delhi  itself.   Therefore,  such  a  provision  has  lost  its

rationality and purpose.  The petitioners in Writ Petition (Civil) No.

1063 of 2018 submits that insofar as he is concerned, if an aerial

distance is taken, his residence falls within 16km radius as he is

residing  in  Indirapuram,  Ghaziabad  (U.P.).   Plea  is  that  if  the

definition of resident member is seen, as defined in  Rule 3(ix), it

means a member residing and practicing as an advocate in Delhi

or  its  suburbs  and  “suburbs”  clearly  includes  NCR  also.

Therefore,  all  those  who are  staying  in  NCR should  be  made

eligible for allotment of chambers.

40) We  are  of  the  opinion  that  having  regard  to  the  changed

circumstances and the manner in which areas around Delhi have

developed  in  past  few  years,  many  advocates  who  appear  in

courts in Delhi, including the Supreme Court, commute on daily

basis from their residences which fall in neighbouring States.  It is

time to reconsider as to whether requirement of residence in Delhi

or  New  Delhi  in  Rule  3  of  the  Allotment  Rules  needs  to  be

retained or it should be extended to some areas of neighbouring

States which are quite close to the vicinity of the Supreme Court.

May be, by fixing a particular radial distance from the Supreme

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 38 of 39

Court,  the  problem  can  be  tackled.   As  it  would  require

consideration on so many aspects, we are of the opinion that this

issue  can  be  considered  by  the  Judges'  Allotment  Committee.

We make it clear that it is for the Committee to take a final view

on  this  issue,  after  taking  into  consideration  all  the  relevant

factors.   

41) All these writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

.............................................J. (A.K. SIKRI)

.............................................J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN)

NEW DELHI; OCTOBER 25, 2018

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018 & Ors. Page 39 of 39