Case details

Court: Supreme Court of India
Decided: 25 October 2018
Bench: A.K. Sikri
Citations: 2018 INSC 998[2018] 13 S.C.R. 517
Type: Judgment (Disposed off)

Actions & My Vault

Save to My Vault

Ask Compass

Supreme Court of India

GOPAL JHA versus THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA on 25 October 2018

Cites 8, Cited by 1

Citations and Judicial Treatment

Cited · treatment not yet classified

Cited by

Decisions in the index citing it

Cites

Decisions referred to

In this index

Of the decisions it cites

Overruled / Questioned

No negative treatment found

Loading the citing and cited decisions…

[2018] 13 S.C.R. 517

GOPAL JHA

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018)

OCTOBER 25, 2018

[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]

Supreme Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment andOccupancy) Rules – Supreme Court invited applications forallotment of Lawyers’ chambers on 31[st] October. 2017 and 16[th] May,2018 stipulating various eligibility criteria for allotment of chambers– Challenged by petitioners, practicing advocates, some of whomare Advocates on Record (AOR), while others fall under the categoryof ‘other advocates’/’non-advocate on record’ – Challenge interalia to fixation of block period (period for which eligibility criteriaof filing and/or appearance has to be fulfilled) – Held: There isrationale in the decision taken by the Judges’ Allotment Committee(on whose recommendations, chambers are allotted by the Hon’bleCJI to the advocates) for fixing the block period from 1[st] June 2011to 30[th] June 2016 as contained in the revised notice dated 16[th] May2018 viz. fixing the block period which is proximate to the noticefor making application for the allotment – Therefore, starting ofcut-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 beenextended, the only modification which can be done, is to put theblock period from 1[st] October, 2013 to 30[th] September, 2018 – It isduring this period the applicant shall have to satisfy the criteria forappearances or filing – Further, plea of petitioners that membershipof 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 amember of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) forsubmitting application for allotment of chambers – Constitution ofIndia – Art. 14.

ADisposing of the writ petitions, the CourtHELD: 1.1 Change of Block Period: A suggestion wasmade that period of 730 days for fulfillment of the eligibility criteriashall be counted from the last cut-off date in 2004 till September30, 2018. This suggestion cannot be accepted as it is way too offBthe mark and may have no connection with the active practicerequirement of an advocate, having proximity with the date whenthe applications for allotment are invited. It hardly needs to beemphasised that pre-requisite for allotment of chamber is thatthe concerned advocate should be in active practice. That is whythe eligibility criteria for member advocates is the requirementCof 50 appearances per year in the block year; for AORs, it isminimum of 20 filings or 50 appearances in a period of one yearfor two years and minimum 40 filings or 100 appearances in aperiod of 730 days. However, if the cut-off date starts from theyear 2004, this purpose may be lost in many cases, resulting inDalloting the chambers to those who may be non-active as of today.There may be cases where a non-AOR or AOR may fulfilconditions of appearances/filing in first 730 days starting fromthe year 2004 i.e. during the year 2004-2005 and thereafter hemay not have any appearances or filings, or such appearances/filings may be negligible. Still he/she would become entitled toEallotment of chamber. This would bring in such advocates whomay not be in active practice in recent past. Such a situation cannotbe countenanced. There is rationale in the decision taken by theJudges’ Allotment Committee for fixing the block period fromJune 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016 as contained in the revised noticeFdated May 16, 2018 viz. fixing the block period which is proximateto 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 theJudges’ Allotment Committee and the date for making applicationis extended, the only modification which can be done is to put theGblock period from October 01, 2013 to September 30, 2018.It is during this period the applicant shall have to satisfy thecriteria and appearances or filing as indicated above. [Paras 24,25] [537-A-H]

1.2 Applications for allotment of chambers were last invitedin the year 2004 and considerable period has lapsed thereafter.Therefore, in order to ensure that such situation does not occurin future, Notice inviting such applications should be at least oncein three years. [Para 26] [538-B-C]

2. Validity of Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules: In order tobecome a member of SCAORA, as per Rule 4 of the Rules andRegulations of Supreme Court Advocate on Record Association(SCAORA) itself, an advocate has to be the member of SupremeCourt Bar Association (SCBA). Therefore, unless an advocateis an AOR and also a member of SCBA, he cannot become themember of SCAORA. This requirement itself accepts the positionthat SCBA is an umbrella organisation and also recognises thevital role it plays. Thus, the argument based on Article 14 of theConstitution would be of no avail. There is no fundamental rightor any statutory right for allotment of chambers in any courtpremises. There is no reason to interfere with the requirementof being a member of SCBA for submitting application forallotment of chambers. [Paras 35-37] [543-C-D; 544-F-G]

3. Prescription of the requirement of resident in Delhi orNew Delhi in Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules: Having regard tothe changed circumstances and the manner in which areas aroundDelhi have developed in past few years, many advocates whoappear in courts in Delhi, including the Supreme Court, commuteon daily basis from their residences which fall in neighbouringStates. It is time to reconsider as to whether requirement ofresidence in Delhi or New Delhi in Rule 3 of the Allotment Rulesneeds to be retained or it should be extended to some areas ofneighbouring States which are quite close to the vicinity of theSupreme Court. May be, by fixing a particular radial distancefrom the Supreme Court, the problem can be tackled. As it wouldrequire consideration on so many aspects, this issue can beconsidered by the Judges’ Allotment Committee. It is for theCommittee to take a final view on this issue, after taking intoconsideration all the relevant factors. [Paras 39, 40] [545-B,F-H; 546-A]

AShayara 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] 15SCR 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,BSupreme Court of India & Ors. (1998) 7 SCC 461– referred to.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil)No. 745 of 2018

Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

WITH

EWrit Petition (Civil) Nos. 772, 844, 917, 854, 975, 947, 941, 998,997, 1063, 1058 and 959 of 2018.

Maninder Singh, ASG, K. V. Vishwanathan, S. R. Singh,R. C. Mishra, Vikas Singh, Jayant K. Sud, Sr. Advs., GopalSankaranarayanan, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Surya Prakash, Ms. AishwaryaFKane, Ms. Gaytri Verma, Javed Mahmud Rao, Dilip Raghuvanshi,Ms. Isha Singh, Gautam Singh, Kumar Ranjan, Adarsh Verma, VarunK. Chopra, Kaushik Poddar, Ashok Kumar, Praveen Swarup, AnanyaMishra, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Pramod Dayal, Nikunj Dayal,Ms. Payal Dayal, B. Raghunath, R. Venkataraman, Sriram P.,GA. Lakshminarayanan, Abhimanue Shrestha, Ms. K. R. Chitra, AnirudhSanganeria, Vikram Gulati, Annam D. N. Rao, Vikrant Yadav, ManishGoswami, Rajiv Kumar, Ms. Ashita Chawla, Parangal Pandey, Advs.for the appearing parties.

Gopal Jha, Petitioner-in-person.HM. R. Shamshad, Petitioner-in-person The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

A. K. SIKRI, J. 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are thepracticing advocates who also claim that they are regularly practicingand appearing in the Supreme Court. Some of them are advocates onrecord (AOR), while others do not fall under this category. They arenot designated senior advocates either and, therefore, can be put in thecategory of ‘other advocates’/’non-advocate on record’. All thesepetitioners are desirous of getting a chamber in the Lawyers ChamberBlock in the Supreme Court.

2. This Court, on administrative side, has framed Supreme CourtLawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules (hereinafterreferred to as the ‘Chamber Allotment Rules’) which govern theprocedure for allotment of chambers within the compound of SupremeCourt. These rules lay down the eligibility criteria for allotment ofchambers. In accordance with these rules, the Hon’ble Chief Justice ofIndia (CJI) has also constituted the Judges’ Allotment Committee. Itcomprises of Hon’ble Judges of this Court, nominated by CJI. There isanother Committee as well, which is headed by the Attorney Generalfor 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), theCJI ordinarily allots chambers to the advocates.

3. In the year 1995, a recommendation was made by the AllotmentCommittee for allotment of chambers to AOR, non-advocates on record(other advocates) and senior advocates in the ratio of 7:2:1. Thisrecommendation was accepted by the CJI on August 29, 1995. Sincethen, allotment is made in the aforesaid ratio to the aforesaid threecategories of advocates.

4. Relevant Chamber Allotment Rules, with which we areconcerned in these petitions, may be reproduced below:

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

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

4. Allotment of chambers to applicants, who are members of theSupreme Court Bar Association, shall be made in the followingorder:

(i) Advocates-on-Record who are regularly practising in thisCourt; B

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

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

Provided, however, that allotment shall be made in accordancewith 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, seventhand eighth vacancies to Advocates-on-Record, ninth vacancy toDthe Non Advocates-on-Record and tenth vacancy to SeniorAdvocates and the cycle shall be repeated in the above order.

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

xx xxxx

20. The allotment shall terminate:

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

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

(c) On the allottee failing to pay the licence fee and other chargesfor the two successive months; or (d) On the allottee ceasing to be a member of the Supreme CourtBar Association; or G

(e) On the allottes’ name being removed from the Roll of a StateBar Council; or (f) On an allottee of a chamber not complying with the orders ofthe Allotment Committee, as approved by the Hon’ble Chief Justiceof India; or H

(g) On the death of an allottee; or

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

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

xx xxxx

23. The Chief Justice of India may from time to time make suchamendments and additions to these Rules as may be necessaryand 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 ismade on the availability thereof and, at that time, applications for allotmentof chambers are invited. This exercise was conducted last time in theyear 2004. Thereafter, i.e. after a gap of thirteen years, the SupremeCourt invited applications for allotment of Lawyers’ chambers on October31, 2017 and May 16, 2018 vide Notice inviting applications whereeligibility 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 CourtBar Association and fulfill the following eligibility criteria forupdating the existing Panels for allotment of Lawyers Chambers:

1. SENIOR ADVOCATES

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

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

2. ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD

(a) Who must have filed (or entered appearances on behalf ofBrespondents) on an average 20 cases per annum (i.e. admission/regular matters and not I.A.s/Cr.M.Ps and Government Filing) inthe course of any two consecutive years between 01.06.2011 and30.06.2016 (a batch of cases shall be treated as a single case).

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

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

(b) Who must have put in not less than fifty appearances(Admission and regular hearing matters excluding I.As. andCr.M.Ps.) each year for any two consecutive years between01.06.2011 and 30.06.2016.

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

6. As is clear from the above, one of the eligibility conditions forAOR was filing of twenty cases per annum in the course of any twoFconsecutive years between June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016 and for otheradvocates, 50 appearances each year for any two consecutive yearsbetween June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016. Further, as far as seniority isconcerned, in respect of AOR, it was to be from the date of registrationas AOR. For other advocates, seniority is to be based on the date oftheir admission to the active membership of SCBA. For senior advocates,Gallotment is to be made on priority on th date of their being designated assenior advocates.

7. Some advocates including the petitioners herein felt aggrievedby one or the other eligibility conditions, depending upon the category inwhich they fall. They sent representations to SCBA as well as Secretary H

General, Supreme Court of India, requesting for change of criteria foreligibility of allotment of chambers. Specific grievance was with respectto the fixation of block period between June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016for which the requirement of filing and/or appearance has to be fulfilled.As per the petitioners, the matter was dealt with by the ChamberAllotment Committee headed by the Attorney General and someamendments were carried out. On that basis, SCBA issued circular forits members on March 15, 2018 mentioning the changes, accepted bythe Chamber Allotment Committee. This circular reads as under:

“The Letter dated 09.01.2018 was discussed at length in today’sChambers Allotment Committee Meeting and the recommendationsmade therein have been accepted by the Committee to the extentdetailed below:

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

(ii) The period of eligibility for filing/appearances shall be from01.01.2004 to 31[st] 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 considerationfor Chambers Allotment, instead of certified copy.

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

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

(vi) Filing of Government cases is also included as eligibility criteriafor Central Government as well as State Government StandingCounsels.

(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 AORpartners will separately be entitled for allotment of Chambers withseparate set of cases (with the consent of other partners thatthey shall not use the same set of cases for their individualallotment).

(ix) Members who were Voters of SCBA from 2012 till the lastelection i.e. December, 2017, based on B.D. Kaushik’s Judgmentspassed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, shall also be entitledto apply for Chambers Allotment (in any year within the abovementioned period).

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

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

(xii) The use of word “Junior Advocate” for Non AOR shall notbe used in any proceeding/notification. Categories may be referredto as “Senior Advocate”, “Advocate on Record” and “Advocate”.

(xiii) Further time has been extended for submission of applicationsfor Chambers Allotment till 30[th] April 2018. (Notification shall beissued in due course).

(xiv) Appearance before Mediation Committee shall not becounted.”

8. However, the opinion of the Judges’ Allotment Committee wasat variance with some of the aforesaid suggestion. It was considered atthe appropriate level and a decision was taken.E

9. Thereafter, revised notice dated May 16, 2018 was issued bythe Administration General Branch of the Supreme Court for invitingapplications for allotment of Lawyers Chambers and the eligibility criteriafor three category of advocates was stated in the following terms:

F“1. SENIOR ADVOCATES

(b) Who must have minimum of 50 appearances (Admission andregular hearing matters excluding I.A.s/Cr.M.P.s save and exceptinterim applications in Public Interest Litigations which are*substantive applications and decided by the Court and suchpetitions like Special Leave Petitions filed with applications forcondonation of delay and listed in Court with Diary Number anddisposed of with diary number by the Court) each year either forany two consecutive years between 01.06.2011 and 30.06.2016or for any two non-consecutive years between 01.06.2011 and G

30.06.2016 provided the Advocate/Applicant concerned availingthe option of appearances during two non-consecutive years hasbeen on the Voters’ list of Supreme Court Bar Association for theentire block period. (Registrar’s Court Appearance shall not betaken into consideration).

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

2. ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD

(a) Who must have filed (or entered appearances on behalf ofrespondents) on an average 20 cases per annum (i.e. admission/regular matters and not I.A.s/Cr.M.Ps and Government Filing saveand except interim applications in Public Interest Litigations whichare *substantive applications and decided by the Court and suchpetitions like Special Leave Petitions filed with applications forcondonation of delay and listed in Court with Diary Number anddisposed of with diary number by the Court) each year for anytwo consecutive years between 01.06.2011 and 30.06.2016 or forany two non-consecutive years between 01.06.2011 and30.06.2016 provided the Advocate/Applicant concerned availingthe option of filing during two non-consecutive years has been onthe Voters’ list of Supreme Court Bar Association for the entireblock period (a batch of cases shall be treated as a single case).

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

3. NON-ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD

(b) Who must have put in not less than fifty appearances(Admission and regular hearing matters excluding I.As. andCr.M.Ps. save and except interim applications in Public InterestLitigations which are *substantive applications and decided bythe Court and such petitions like Special Leave Petitions filedwith applications for condonation of delay and listed in Court withDiary Number and disposed of with diary number by the Court)each year either for any two consecutive years between 01.06.2011

Aand 30.06.2016 or for any two non-consecutive years between01.06.2011 and 30.06.2016 provided the Advocate/Applicantconcerned availing the option of appearances during two non-consecutive years has been on the Voters’ list of Supreme CourtBar Association for the entire block period.

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

*(For illustration, substantive applications may be referred to suchinterim applications by the project proponent or the applicant itselfCas are filed in Public Interest Litigation entitled ‘T.N. GodavarmanThirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors.’ and decided by the Courtas Such)”

10. As demand of the advocates, particularly with respect to blockperiod was not met, the SCBA took up the matter again by addressingDcommunication dated July 18, 2018 to CJI wherein it was stated thatfollowing provisions pertaining to allotment of chambers were notincorporated in the notice dated May 16, 2018 which was issued forinviting applications for allotment of chambers:

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

2. Requisite Calendar year shall be 1[st] January to 31[st] Decemberinstead of filing/appearance year 1[st] July to 30[th] June.

3. Number of filing by Advocates-on-Record of Government/StateFCases 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 satisfyingthe filing criteria in less than 2 years, be included in the panel ofAdvocates-On-Record in order of their seniority as Advocate-On-Record.G

5. Similarly, AORs and Non-AORs subsequently designated asSenior Advocates from 2016 onwards, satisfying the eligibilitynorms as Advocates-On-Record/Non Advocates-On-Record beincluded in the panel of Senior Advocates in chronology of beingdesignated as Senior Advocate.”H

GOPAL JHA v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA[A. K. SIKRI, J.]

11. Some of the petitioners herein also made representations tothe Supreme Court raising their specific grievances qua the aforesaidnotice dated May 16, 2018. As per them, since their grievance have notbeen 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 TitleRelief Sought1 Gopal Jha, WP(C) No. Change of block period from 745/2018 01.06.2011-30.06.2016 to 01.01.2005 to 17.10.2017/ 16.05.2018. C2 Anirudh Sanganeria, Calendar year to be taken as January-WP(C) No. 772/2018 December instead of June 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) Change of block period from DNo. 854/2018 01.06.2011-30.06.2016 to 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2017. 4 V. Shyam Mohan, Challenged Clause 3 of the Lawyers WP(C) No. 844/2018 Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules as it violates of Article 14, 19(1)(c) and Article 19(1)(g) as it Emandates that applicant should be a member of SCBA.5 Sahdev Singh, WP(C) Take into consideration period from No. 941 of 2018 01.01.2004 – 31.05.2011 in the Block Period. F6 Shirin Khajuria, WP(C) (i) AOR should be permitted to apply No. 917/2018 in the category of Non-AOR. (ii) Third category to be renamed as Advocate. 7V. Mohana, WP(C) No. Extend cut-off date from 31.06.2016 997/2018 and in the alternative quash notice Gdated 16.05.2018, on the ground that Clause 3B is violative of Article 14 and 19. 8 R.K. Singh, WP(C) No. Block date to be taken as 01.01.2004 – 975/2018 31.12.2017H

9 Jaikriti S. Jadeja & Ors., Cut-off period be extended till WP(C) No. 947/2018 31.12.2017. 10M.R. Shamshad, WP(C) No. Quashing of Condition 2(a) of 998/2018 revised notice inviting Bapplications for allotment of Lawyers Chambers dated 16.05.2018. 11Vikram Gulati, WP(C) No. (i) Change of block period 1063/2018 from 01.06.2011-30.06.2016 to 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2017. C(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 DJanuary to December instead of June to May and the cut-off period be extended till 31.12.2017. 12 Divyesh Pratap Singh, WP(C) Cut-off period be extended till No. 1058/2018 30.08.2018. E ___________________________ _______________________

13. From the aforesaid, it can be seen that following issues havebeen raised in these writ petitions:

(i) Change of Block Period: Notice dated May 16, 2018 mentionsthe block period from June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016. Different petitionersFhave suggested different block periods which are: (a) block period shouldbe 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 May31, 2011 should also be taken into consideration; and (d) January 01,2004 to December 31, 2017.

G(ii) Calendar year mentioned in notice dated May 16, 2018 is fromJune to June. The suggestion is that it should be taken as January toDecember.

(iii) Clause 3 of the Allotment Rules as per which allotment canbe made to those advocates only who are members of SCBA ischallenged inter alia by contending that apart from SCBA, there is anH

association of AOR as well, known as SCAORA and it should besufficient when a person is a member of SCAORA.

(iv) Requirement of minimum filings of AOR and appearances bysenior 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 itshould not be changed.

(v) An incidental issue is also raised as to whether Supreme Courtshould invite the applications for allotment of chambers by issuing specificnotices from time to time or it should be a continuous process.

14. Notices in these petitions were issued. Registrar, SupremeCourt of India has filed reply affidavits in some of these writ petitionswhich cover all the issues raised. It is, inter alia, stated that ChamberAllotment Committee consisting of the learned Attorney General forIndia, as a Chairman and the Presidents, Vice-Presidents and Hony.Secretaries of SCBA and SCAORA as Members, in its meeting held onNovember 18, 2015, approved the draft notification inviting applicationsfor empanelment of lawyers for allotment of chambers vide AgendaItem No. 10. Vide this resolution, it was, inter alia, agreed that theblock period should be from January 01, 2009 to December 31, 2014.Soon after the aforesaid recommendations, a number of letters/representations from the advocates were received by the Registry prayingfor change in the block period. The Chamber Allotment Committeeheaded by the learned Attorney General for India again convened ameeting on May 11, 2016 and after consideration, the requests of theadvocates vide Agenda Item No. 2, inter alia, resolved in connectionwith the block period as under:

“The Committee perused the aforesaid letters vis-a-vis the OfficeReport and resolved that since the year 2015 has already gone by,the earlier approved Block Period (01.01.2009 to 31.12.2014) maynow 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 forapproval and orders before the Hon’ble Judges Committee for approvingallotment of Lawyers Chambers and thereafter, were also placed beforethe CJI. The comments made by the Registry in this regard were also A

DEF

Aplaced before the Hon’ble Judges Committee on July 11, 2016.Considering the comments made by the Registry that chambers in PragatiMaidan will be available sometime in the end of 2017 and if block periodis confined to the year 2015 as resolved by the Chamber Allotmentcommittee headed by the learned Attorney General for India, advocateswho may complete minimum number of appearances after 2015 mayBnot apply for allotment and, therefore, it was submitted for consideration,if the block period should be upto December 31, 2015 or June 30, 2016or some other dates.

16. The Hon’ble Judges Committee, inter alia, recommendedthat the block period may be changed so as to make it from June 01,C2011 to June 30, 2016. The same was also approved by the then CJIvide order dated July 28, 2016. Accordingly, notification dated October31, 2017 inviting online application for empanelment of Lawyers forallotment of chambers was issued.

17. Since, representations were received against this notificationDalso from certain advocates and even SCBA. These representationswere placed before Chamber Allotment Committee headed by the learnedAttorney General for India in its meeting dated March 15, 2018 whereinrecommendation was made, as already noted above. It was placedbefore the Judges Committee on March 27, 2018. The Judges Committee,Ehowever, did not accept the same in its entirety. The earlier block periodalready notified i.e. June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016 was recommended tobe retained as unaltered while some of the recommendations wereaccepted. However, before the aforesaid recommendation of the JudgesCommittee could be considered by the CJI, the SCBA again reiteratedits request. Because of this reason, Judges Committee again assembledFon May 9, 2018 wherein hearing was given to the President and Hony.Secretary of SCBA. The Judges Committee, however, did not agree tochange the block period, but recommended the following changes:

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

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

“...that interim applications in Public Interest Litigations whichare substantive applications and decided by the Court as suchshall also be counted towards the requisite number of filings andor 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 whichnotice was issued. Accordingly, Judges Committee resolved in itsmeeting held on July 30, 2018 as under:

“The Committee understands that the issue regarding allotmentof chambers is pending consideration before the Bench presidedover by Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri. Following order waspassed 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 nextday of hearing.

We are informed that 31.07.2018 is the last date for makingapplication for allotment of chambers. The petitioners herein maymake their applications which may be received/acceptedprovisionally and kept separately.’

In the circumstances, the Committee feels it would be inappropriateto deal with the matter till the pending matter is disposed of on thejudicial 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 bearersof SCAORA would deliberate on the issues raised and shall try to arriveat a consensus.

20. When the matters were taken up on October 4, 2018, thelearned ASG submitted note proposing the solution to the various issues.

AThe suggestion given in the said ‘Note’ are as under:

“1.…

(i) The consideration of the request for allotment of chambersto the members of SCBA belonging to the above mentioned allthe 3 categories should be for all those who fulfil individualrespective criteria in the above mentioned 3 categories by30thSeptember, 2018.

(ii) In other words, any member advocate, who fulfils therequirement of 50 appearances per year by 30[th] September, 2018,would become entitled for submitting an application for allotmentof chamber to the Registry of the Supreme Court and every suchapplication shall be accepted. The Registry would consider aperiod of 730 days (a continuous period of 2 years) at any timebefore 30[th] September, 2018 and on being satisfied of the fulfilmentof the relevant criteria, shall accept the application for considerationof allotment of chamber.

2. Similarly, for all Member AORs who wish to submit theirapplication by 30.9.2018 would be required to fulfil minimum of20 filings or 50 appearances in a period of one year for two years,would have to satisfy the Registry of minimum 40 filings or 100appearances in a period of 730 days of any period as on 30[th]September, 2018. Such applications would also be accepted bythe Registry of the Supreme Court for allotment of chambers. Itis clarified that the submission of application for allotment ofchamber by a member of the SCBA can be on any of the criteriafor 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 besubmitted on any of the criteria, namely, criteria of eligibility fornon-AOR, criteria for eligibility of AOR and criteria for eligibilityof a Sr. Advocate. However, the allotment of chamber to anysuch member shall be from the quota of 7:10 or 2:10 or 1:10, asthe case may be, on the basis of the status held by the member inpresenti.

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

4. This cut-off date of 30.9.2018 shall be subject to any modificationwhich may be made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, either in thehearing scheduled for 20.9.2018 or any date thereafter. In otherwords, the last cut-off date proposed as 30.9.2018 would getsubstituted by the date so decided by the Supreme Court. Theperiod of 730 days for fulfilment of the eligibility criteria in theabove mentioned separate categories of advocates shall be countedfrom the last cut-off date in 2004 till 30[th] September, 2018 or anyother date which may be decided by the Supreme Court.

5. It is the firm suggestion on behalf of the SCBA that the processfor lodging/submitting applicatoins for allotment of chambers byMembers of SCBA, in any of the above mentioned 3 categories,should be a continuous process, i.e., whenever any member ofthe SCBA belonging to any of the 3 categories fulfils therequirement of the criteria prescribed for becoming eligible forconsideration for allotment of chamber by the Supreme Court,his/her application shall be accepted by the Registry. This wouldcompletely eliminate the uncertainty with regard to opening of theperiod for inviting such applications. The procedure/mechanismof 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 toremain operative continuously would be beneficial to the membersof the SCBA and would also remove possible anomalies andirritants in this entire process.

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

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

In both these cases, filings for the Government and/orappearances for the Government, filing of IAs and appearancesin IAs shall not be counted. Similarly, appearances before the AB

Ld. Registrar or before the Hon’ble Chamber Judge would alsonot be counted.

8. In relation to all those Member Advocates who have alreadylodged/submitted their applications for allotment of chambers asadvocate (Non-AOR) on the basis of the criteria of 50 appearancesBin a given year for 2 years and have now qualified in the AORexamination, they shall be held to be eligible for allotment ofchambers in the AOR category and the allotment of chamber intheir favour shall be only from the quota of 7:10 chambers meantfor the AOR quota.

C9. Similarly, all those Member Advocates who had submitted theirapplications for allotment of chambers at an earlier occasion, eitherin the category of AOR or in the category of Advocate (Non-AOR) and have been subsequently designated as SeniorAdvocates, they shall be held to be eligible for allotment of chamberon those basis – 1:10 quota chambers for Senior Advocates andDshall be considered accordingly. Any allotment of chamber tothem will have to be allotment from the quota of 1:10 in the SeniorAdvocates category, even when their eligibility for considerationfor allotment of chambers had been achieved either as an AORor as an advocate member of the SCBA in the non-AOREcategory.”

21. Insofar as challenge to Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules, namely,pre-condition of being a member of SCBA before consideration ofallotment of chambers in any of the three categories is concerned, it ispleaded that the same be retained as, according to them, there is nomerit in the said contention.F

22. After hearing the counsel for the parties as well asMr. Maninder 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.

G23. This leaves us to decide the following issues:

(a) Change of block period.

(b) Validity of condition of membership of SCBA contained inRule 3 of the Allotment Rules.

24. Change of Block Period: We have already accepted thesuggestions 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 criteriashall 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 markand may have no connection with the active practice requirement of anadvocate, having proximity with the date when the applications forallotment are invited. It hardly needs to be emphasised that pre-requisitefor allotment of chamber is that the concerned advocate should be inactive practice. That is why the eligibility criteria for member advocatesis the requirement of 50 appearances per year in the block year; forAORs, it is minimum of 20 filings or 50 appearances in a period of oneyear for two years and minimum 40 filings or 100 appearances in aperiod of 730 days. However, if the cut-off date starts from the year2004, this purpose may be lost in many cases, resulting in alloting thechambers to those who may be non-active as of today. There may becases 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 year2004-2005 and thereafter he may not have any appearances or filings,or such appearances/filings may be negligible. Still he/she would becomeentitled to allotment of chamber. This would bring in such advocateswho may not be in active practice in recent past. Such a situation cannotbe countenanced. We, therefore, find rationale in the decision taken bythe Judges’ Allotment Committee for fixing the block period from June01, 2011 to June 30, 2016 as contained in the revised notice dated May16, 2018 viz. fixing the block period which is proximate to the notice formaking application for the allotment. Therefore, starting of cut-off datefrom the year 2004 is unacceptable.

25. Since, sometime has elapsed when the block period was fixedby the Judges’ Allotment Committee and we have extended the date formaking application, the only modification which can be done is to put theblock period from October 01, 2013 to September 30, 2018. It is duringthis period the applicant shall have to satisfy the criteria and appearancesor filing as indicated above.

A26. We are also not accepting the suggestion given in Para 5 ofthe Note that the allotment of chambers should be a continuous process.There has been a consistent practice in the past of inviting applicationsfrom time to time whenever lawyers’ chambers become available forallotment. It should be maintained as there is no reason to depart fromthe same. Otherwise, the purpose of fixing proximate block period shallBalso get defeated. At the same time, we also find that last suchapplications were invited in the year 2004 and considerable period haslapsed thereafter. Therefore, in order to ensure that such situation doesnot occur in future, we are of the opinion that Notice inviting suchapplications should be at least once in three years.

27. Validity of Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules: As per this rule, themembership of SCBA is essential to apply for allotment of chambers.Those petitioners who have challenged the validity of this rule submitthat this eligibility criteria is discriminatory and violates the fundamentalrights guaranteed to them under Articles 14, 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of theDConstitution. Expanding this argument, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan,who appeared for writ petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 844 of 2018submitted that SCAORA is also a represented body like SCBA and,therefore, membership of anyone of these bodies should be enough formaking a person eligible to be considered for allotment of chambers. Itwas argued that SCAORA was also a vibrant body which was formedEfor the welfare of AOR. Therefore, the measure in the allotment ofLawyers’ Chambers Rules that restricts eligibility for allotment ofchambers to members of the SCBA and excludes those who aremembers only of the SCAORA is manifestly arbitrary. Reliance is placedin this regard on the judgment of this Court in Shayara Bano v. Union Fof India[1], where it was held as follows:

“87. The thread of reasonableness runs through the entirefundamental rights chapter. What is manifestly arbitrary isobviously unreasonable and being contrary to the rule of law, wouldviolate Article 14. Further, there is an apparent contradiction inGthe three-Judge Bench decision in McDowell [State of A.P. v.McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709] when it is said that aconstitutional challenge can succeed on the ground that a law is“disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable”, yet such challengewould fail on the very ground of the law being “unreasonable, 1(2017) 9 SCC 1H

unnecessary or unwarranted”. The arbitrariness doctrine whenapplied to legislation obviously would not involve the latterchallenge but would only involve a law being disproportionate,excessive or otherwise being manifestly unreasonable. All theaforesaid grounds, therefore, do not seek to differentiate betweenState action in its various forms, all of which are interdicted ifthey fall foul of the fundamental rights guaranteed to persons andcitizens in Part III of the Constitution.”

28. According to the petitioners, this provision violates Article 14as well as it created unreasonable classification. The consequences ofthis unreasonable classification would be as follows:

(i) As a result of the judgment of this Court in Supreme CourtBar Association & Ors. v. B.D. Kaushik[2], only certain members ofthe SCBA are permitted to vote in elections, as they are treated asserious and regular practitioners in the Supreme Court. However, Rule3 of the Allotment of Lawyers’ Chamber Rules makes no such distinctionand, therefore, those members of the SCBA who are ineligible to vote intheir own association are eligible to be allotted chambers of the SupremeCourt.

(ii) If an SCBA member were to be expelled for any reason, forexample, if an SCBA member did not participate in the call for an illegalstrike by the SCBA on the grounds that it would be contrary to thejudgment of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Ex-Capt. HarishUppal v. Union of India & Anr.[3], such a member would be ineligible toapply for a chamber in the Supreme Court, whose very judgment he/shehas sought to adhere to.

(iii) The petitioners have contended that the allocation of chambersis a privilege afforded by the Supreme Court of India to those advocatespracticing before it. When both the SCBA and the SCAORA havebeen recognised as advocates’ associations of equal importance, it wouldbe inappropriate to extend such a privilege only to the members of oneassociation and not the other.

29. It was also submitted that such a classification that excludesthe association of those advocates as prescribed under Article 145(1)(a)of the Constitution of India read with the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 is 2 (2011) 13 SCC 7743 (2003) 2 SCC 45

Aunreasonable and has no rational nexus with the object sought to beachieved, i.e., the allotment of chambers to the regular practitioners ofthe Supreme Court. Mr. Sankaranarayanan went to the extent ofcontending that given the role of AOR in the administration of justice bythe Supreme Court, it was more important in nature than even SCBA. Itwas submitted that AOR are given pre-eminence position as they:B

(i) Undertake an examination administered by the Supreme Court;

(ii) Are the only advocates authorised to act on behalf of a clientin the Supreme Court;

(iii) Adhere to strict stipulations regarding office location,Cmaintenance of accounts and filing of returns, unlike any other class ofadvocates.

(iv) Are recognized as such by judgments of this Court from1964 onwards. This is even acknowledged by the Chamber AllotmentRules which earmarks nearly 70% of the chambers of the AOR.D

30. He further argued that the impugned Rule amounts to acompulsion for AOR to become a member of the SCBA, which wouldmake an inroad into the rights under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitutionof India, of such advocates who are already members of SCAORA bycompelling them unreasonably to become members of another Court-Eaffiliated organization.

31. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel, who appeared in thecapacity as President of SCBA as well as Mr. Maninder Singh, learnedASG defended Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules. It was submitted thatSCBA is an umbrella association which represents the interests of all itsFmembers. Membership of SCBA was open to all advocates, irrespectiveof their category, namely, senior advocates, advocates, AOR as well asother advocates. It was also argued that as a representative body for allthe members, it is SCBA which has discussions with the CJI and/orJudges on various issues and problems which may occur from time totime, to find mutual acceptable solution to such problems and issues.G

32. It was further argued that this fact of SCBA, being an umbrellaassociation, was even recognised by SCAORA itself which was reflectedin the Rules and Regulations of SCAORA. Attention was drawn, in this H

behalf, to Rule 4 of the said Rules and Regulations which deals withadmission and qualification for membership and prescribes that in orderto become a member of SCAORA, it is necessary to have themembership of SCBA. Relevant portion of this Rule reads as under:

“4. …

A. An advocate may be considered for enrolment as Member ofthe Association if -

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

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

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

33. Based on the aforesaid provisions, they argued that AOR cannotbe a member of SCAORA unless he is a member of SCBA and, therefore,entire issue raised by the petitioners was academic in nature, since thecontention of the petitioners proceeds on the basis that insofar as AORis concerned, membership of SCAORA should be sufficient.

34. It was also submitted that nobody has any right to get allotmentof chamber, much less a fundamental right and, therefore, the petitionerscannot invoke the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of theConstitution. Mr. Vikas Singh, in support, relied upon the judgment ofthis Court in Vinay Balachandra Joshi v. Registrar General, SupremeCourt of India & Ors.[4]. It was a matter pertaining to allotment ofchambers within the compound of the Supreme Court itself. One of thecontentions of the petitioners therein was that not making availablechambers to the AOR within the Supreme Court compound is violativeof fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and thiscontention was rejected in the following manner:

“4. We will first deal with the contention raised by the petitionersin Writ Petitions Nos. 883 and 1223 of 1990, that not makingavailable chambers to the Advocates-on-Record within the 4(1998) 7 SCC 461

Supreme Court compound is violative of their fundamental rightunder Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It was submitted thatArticle 19(1)(g) guarantees, inter alia, the right to practise anyprofession. Practising legal profession is thus a fundamental right.An Advocate-on-Record can exercise this fundamental right ofhis effectively only if he is provided with a chamber within theSupreme Court premises. Therefore, to make a chamber availableto him is an integral part of his guaranteed fundamental right. Wesee no substance in this contention. Even if we proceed on thebasis that to practise as an advocate is a fundamental right, noright to be allotted a chamber within the Court premises followsfrom it. A legal practitioner/an advocate can carry on his legalprofession without a chamber. It is not necessary that he shouldhave a chamber within the Court premises. That which merelyfacilitates the exercise of the fundamental right cannot be regardedas an integral part of that fundamental right. Far from being afundamental right it does not even have the status of a right. Nolaw confers such a right on a member of a legal profession norsuch a facility has been accepted as a right even otherwise. Makinga chamber available to a member of the legal profession practisingin 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 theAdvocates-on-Record, not giving a chamber to him cannot beregarded as violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Itmay be stated that neither the learned Attorney General nor MrNariman, Mr Venugopal and other Senior Advocates supportedthis contention and very fairly stated that the view which we aretaking namely that it is a facility provided by the Court is thecorrect view.

5. As it is not a matter of right or legal obligation of the Court toprovide the facility of a chamber to an advocate it would really bea matter of discretion of the Principal Judge of the Court to decideto whom and to what extent that facility should be extended whenthe same is available; and his only obligation would be to act in afair and just manner and not arbitrarily. It may be proper for himto frame rules, appoint a committee and fix guidelines for thepurpose of allotment of chambers; but the obligation is no higherthan to act in a reasonable manner. It would be for him to decide when, to whom, to what extent and on what terms and conditionshe should allot chambers.”

35. Having regard to the existence of Rule 4 in the Rules andRegulations of SCAORA itself, the entire edifice of the petitioners casestands demolished. No doubt, SCAORA has its significant position inthis Court. However, we are concerned with the issue of allotment ofchambers. The petitioners have submitted that members of SCAORAshould be treated as sufficient eligibility for allotment of chambers. Yet,in order to become a member of SCAORA, as per Rule 4 of the Rulesand Regulations of SCAORA itself, an advocate has to be the memberof SCBA. Therefore, unless an advocate is an AOR and also a memberof SCBA, he cannot become the member of SCAORA. This requirementitself accepts the position that SCBA is an umbrella organisation andalso recognises the vital role it plays. Thus, the argument based onArticle 14 of the Constitution would be of no avail.

36. The respondents are also correct in their submission that thereis no fundamental right or any statutory right for allotment of chambersin any court premises. This aspect has already been decided in VinayBalachandra Joshi, relevant discussion whereof has been reproducedabove. Further, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondentNo. 1, significance of membership of SCBA is highlighted in order toavail various facilities. It is, inter alia, stated that facilities like Library,Parking, Canteen, Medical etc. become available only to the membersof the Bar Association of the concerned courts and such a stipulation isprevalent in almost every court in the country. Counter affidavit goes onto 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 allotmentof Chambers in any Court premises. It may, however, be submittedthat each Court in the country always endeavours to extend (withinits resources and availability of place etc.) maximum facilities tothe Ld. Advocates for facilitating the process of administration ofjustice and for making it more efficient. It is also a fact, as observedin past so many decades, that the Ld. Advocates practicing at anyCourt - for a large number of reasons including for the bettercoordination with the Court authorities for achieving efficiency in A

the process of administration of justice, do form Bar Associationnot only for conducting and regulating the internal affairs of theirMembers but also for coordinating (as one unified class) with theCourt authorities for achieving and securing betterment andimprovement of the justice delivery system at any Court. It is amatter of common knowledge that such Bar Associations are inexistence, from the inception of the modern Court system itselfand are active in their own sphere. The Supreme Court also hasin place, the Supreme Court Bar Association and which is takingcare of the interest of its members and also coordinates with theauthorities of the Supreme Court for welfare of its Members andalso for further improvements in the justice delivery system at theSupreme Court.

xxxx

Without prejudice to the above, it is most respectfully reiteratedthat after securing enrolment as an Advocate under the AdvocatesDAct, 1961 - the Ld. Advocates, for consideration for being extendedcertain facilities at the respective Court premises, are made obligedto also obtain membership with the local Bar Association, whichalso provides an additional forum/mechanism (besides and inaddition to the Court authorities itself) to facilitate and regulateEthe conduct/affairs of the Ld. Advocates practicing before anyCourt of law. It is most humbly submitted that contentions to thecontrary raised in the present Writ Petition seeking to questionthe correctness and validity of the above-mentioned Rule obligingthe Ld. Advocates to secure the Membership of SCBA forconsideration for extending the facility of allotment of Chamber isFentirely valid and legal.”

37. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with therequirement of being a member of SCBA for submitting application forallotment of chambers.

38. Alternative submission of the petitioners is that if the rule isupheld, an opportunity should be given to those members of SCAORA,who have not become the members of SCBA so far, to apply and becomethe member of SCBA even now and on that condition, their applicationsfor allotment of chambers be entertained. Insofar as this submission is G

concerned, once the petitioners or other similarly situated persons becomemembers of SCBA, they can make such a request to the ChambersCommittee while making their applications for allotment of chambersand it will be for the Chambers Committee to take a view thereupon.

39. Prescription of the requirement of resident in Delhi or NewDelhi in Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules: In one of the petitions, thisprovision is challenged. It is submitted that there is no rationale inprescribing the condition that an advocate to become eligible for allotmentof chamber should be a resident in Delhi or New Delhi. Argument wasthat in last few years, there was exponential growth in the population ofDelhi which, inter alia, necessitated people to shift in areas nearby, likeNoida or Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh, Faridabad or Gurugram in Haryana.It was submitted that the only purpose for making the aforesaid provisionwas that the advocate who is practicing in Supreme Court is readilyavailable and, therefore, he is living in the vicinity of the Supreme Court.It was submitted that some of the areas which are mentioned above arecloser to the Supreme Court than many areas in Delhi itself. Therefore,such a provision has lost its rationality and purpose. The petitioners inWrit Petition (Civil) No. 1063 of 2018 submits that insofar as he isconcerned, if an aerial distance is taken, his residence falls within 16kmradius as he is residing in Indirapuram, Ghaziabad (U.P.). Plea is that ifthe definition of resident member is seen, as defined in Rule 3(ix), itmeans a member residing and practicing as an advocate in Delhi or itssuburbs and “suburbs” clearly includes NCR also. Therefore, all thosewho are staying in NCR should be made eligible for allotment ofchambers.

40. We are of the opinion that having regard to the changedcircumstances and the manner in which areas around Delhi havedeveloped in past few years, many advocates who appear in courts inDelhi, including the Supreme Court, commute on daily basis from theirresidences which fall in neighbouring States. It is time to reconsider asto whether requirement of residence in Delhi or New Delhi in Rule 3 ofthe Allotment Rules needs to be retained or it should be extended tosome areas of neighbouring States which are quite close to the vicinityof the Supreme Court. May be, by fixing a particular radial distancefrom the Supreme Court, the problem can be tackled. As it would requireconsideration on so many aspects, we are of the opinion that this issue A