Supreme Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules – Supreme Court invited applications for allotment of Lawyers’ chambers on 31st October. 2017 and 16th May, 2018 stipulating various eligibility criteria for allotment of chambers – Challenged by petitioners, practicing advocates, some of whom are Advocates on Record (AOR), while others fall under the category of ‘other advocates’/’non-advocate on record’ – Challenge inter alia to fixation of block period (period for which eligibility criteria of filing and/or appearance has to be fulfilled) – Held: There is rationale in the decision taken by the Judges’ Allotment Committee (on whose recommendations, chambers are allotted by the Hon’ble CJI to the advocates) for fixing the block period from 1st June 2011 to 30th June 2016 as contained in the revised notice dated 16th May 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 – However, since, sometime has elapsed when the block period was fixed by the Judges’ Allotment Committee and the date for making application has been extended, the only modification which can be done, is to put the block period from 1st October, 2013 to 30th September, 2018 – It is during this period the applicant shall have to satisfy the criteria for appearances or filing – Further, plea of petitioners that membership of Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAORA) should be treated as sufficient eligibility for allotment of chambers, rejected – No reason to interfere with the requirement of being a member of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for submitting application for allotment of chambers – Constitution of India – Art. 14.
Disposing of the writ petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Change of Block Period: A suggestion was made 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 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. There is 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. Since, sometime has elapsed when the block period was fixed by the Judges’ Allotment Committee and the date for making application is extended, 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. [Paras 24, 25] [537-A-H]
1.2 Applications for allotment of chambers were last invited in the year 2004 and considerable period has lapsed thereafter. Therefore, in order to ensure that such situation does not occur in future, Notice inviting such applications should be at least once in three years. [Para 26] [538-B-C]
2. Validity of Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules: In order to become a member of SCAORA, as per Rule 4 of the Rules and Regulations of Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association (SCAORA) itself, an advocate has to be the member of Supreme Court Bar Association (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. There is no fundamental right or any statutory right for allotment of chambers in any court premises. There is no reason to interfere with the requirement of being a member of SCBA for submitting application for allotment of chambers. [Paras 35-37] [543-C-D; 544-F-G]
3. Prescription of the requirement of resident in Delhi or New Delhi in Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules: 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 Court, the problem can be tackled. As it would require consideration on so many aspects, this issue can be considered by the Judges’ Allotment Committee. It is for the Committee to take a final view on this issue, after taking into consideration all the relevant factors. [Paras 39, 40] [545-B, F-H; 546-A]
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1: [2017] 7 SCR 797 ; Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors. v. B.D. Kaushik (2011) 13 SCC 774 : [2011] 15 SCR 736 ; Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India & Anr. (2003) 2 SCC 45 : [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 186 ; Vinay Balachandra Joshi v. Registrar General,
Supreme Court of India & Ors. (1998) 7 SCC 461 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.