SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION versus MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ORS. on 23 March 2023

1. The Supreme Court Bar Association[1] has invoked the jurisdictionof this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a writ ofmandamus directing the Union Ministry of Urban Development to E(i)grant permission for the conversion into a chamber blockfor lawyers of an entire tract of land admeasuring 1.33 acressituated near the ITO, which has been allotted to theSupreme Court;

(ii) convert the entire area around the Supreme Court as ‘aFSupreme Court Complex’ so that all the buildings acrossthe Supreme Court on Bhagwan Das Road including theForeign Correspondents’ Club of South Asia, Indian LawInstitute and Indian Society of International Law can beutilized for conversion into chambers or for beingredeveloped as a chamber block / for activities of theGSupreme Court or for any other amenities for lawyers; and

(iii) allot a government bungalow which is presently beingoccupied by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club to thepetitioner.

H1 “SCBA”

SCBA v. MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ORS.[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

2. According to the petitioner, the number of advocates practicingbefore the Supreme Court has increased manifold in recent years andthe existing chamber blocks are insufficient to accommodate the growingneeds of lawyers eligible for allotment. According to the petitioner, anarea admeasuring 12.19 acres in the erstwhile Appu Ghar Complex wasallotted to the Supreme Court by the Ministry of Urban Development ofwhich a small portion has been utilized for the construction of a newchamber block for advocates practicing before the Supreme Court. Inthe new chamber block for lawyers, 234 chambers have been constructedwhich are now allotted on a dual occupancy to accommodate 468lawyers.

A

B

C

3. The petitioner asserts that out of a total area of 1.33 acresallotted to the Supreme Court by the Union Government near ITO forthe construction of an archival block, only 0.50 acres has been earmarkedfor a chamber block for lawyers. According to the petitioner, only fourto five hundred chambers can be constructed in the said area. Since theland admeasuring 1.33 acres is ‘the last piece of vacant land availablenear the Supreme Court’, the petitioner submits that it should be entirelyutilized for constructing chamber blocks for lawyers.

D

4. According to the petitioner, the archives of the Supreme Courtcan be housed in the Additional Building Complex where some areasare lying vacant. The petitioner submits that they have an equal right toutilize vacant spaces in lands allotted to the Supreme Court as its membersare an integral part of the justice delivery system.

E

5. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr Vikas Singh, learnedsenior counsel submitted that:

F

(i) The allotment of 12.19 acres in the erstwhile Appu GharComplex by the Ministry of Urban Development to theSupreme Court was expedited by the institution of a petitionon the judicial side by the SCBA;

(ii) After the Additional Building Complex was constructed in2018-19, a small segment has been utilized for theGconstruction of a chamber block for lawyers in which 234chambers have been constructed allowing for an occupancyof 468 lawyers;

(iii) The Additional Registrar of the Supreme Court informedthe SCBA that 0.50 acres out of 1.33 acres of land have H

been earmarked for construction of a lawyers’ chamberblock, subject to a change of use. Since only four to fivehundred chambers can be constructed on the land whichhas been earmarked, the entirety should be utilized for theconstruction of chambers for lawyers who are an integralpart of the justice delivery system; and A

B

(iv) A petition under Article 32 is maintainable because a changeof land use requires judicial intervention and also bearing inmind the precedent of this Court’s intervention on the issueof the electoral college for the SCBA.

C6. Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing onbehalf of the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association[2] submitsthat the members of the Association are required by the Rules governingtheir practice as Advocates on Record to maintain an office within astipulated radius of the Supreme Court. Learned senior counsel submittedthat in the newly constructed chamber block in the Additional BuildingDComplex, approximately 70 percent of the chambers have been allottedto Advocates on Record (the remaining 10 percent being allotted to SeniorAdvocates and 20 percent to other Advocates). While emphasizing theneeds of the Advocates on Record, Ms Arora submitted that this is amatter which SCAORA is agreeable to being taken up on theEadministrative side with the Supreme Court. Learned senior counselfurther submitted that at that stage, it would be desirable if an opportunityis granted to SCAORA to deliberate on the issue with the BuildingCommittee of the Supreme Court.

7. Mr Manan Kumar Mishra, Mr S Prabhakaran, and Mr DebiFPrasad Dhal, all learned senior counsel, appeared on behalf of the BarCouncil of India.

8. Mr Manan Kumar Mishra who is also the Chairperson of theBar Council of India urged that (i) the Bar Council of India is a statutorybody entrusted with duties and functions to regulate the legal profession;G(ii) though the Bar Council has a building of its own, situated in proximityto the Supreme Court, it is inadequate to meet its needs; (iii) the BarCouncil of India has to carry out disciplinary functions and all its recordsare lodged in a godown; (iv) hence the space should be allotted to theBar Council of India for the construction of a building complex which would facilitate the discharge of its statutory functions under theAdvocates Act 1961. Mr Manan Kumar Mishra, Mr S Prabhakaran andMr Debi Prasad Dhal, learned senior counselhave, however, joined instating that this is a matter which should be taken up only on theadministrative side and the Bar Council would be content with suchdecision as may be taken by the Supreme Court to accommodate itsreasonable needs.

9. Mr R Venkataramani, learned Attorney General appeared onbehalf of the Union Government. The Attorney General has submittedthat the issue should be taken up on the administrative side by the SupremeCourt and that in his own capacity, he will facilitate an attempt to securethe needs of the institution and of its stakeholders.

10. Mr Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalfof the SCBA has questioned the locus of the Bar Council of India inthese proceedings, stating that SCBA is the recognized associationrepresenting lawyers practicing before the Supreme Court. Hence,according to him, the Bar Council, which has a building of its own, hasno locus standi to make any submissions for asserting its own demandsin the land which has been allotted to the Supreme Court.

11. On 12 September 2022, this Court issued notice with respectto the relief sought in prayer (a) of the petition seeking the conversion ofthe land admeasuring 1.33 acres for a chamber block for lawyers.

12. The written submission which has been filed in theseproceedings by the Secretary General of the Supreme Court of Indiasets out the background of the allotment of land admeasuring 1.33 acres.On 21 August 2017, pursuant to a request by the Registrar(Administration) of the Supreme Court, the Union Ministry of the Housingand Urban Affairs conveyed the sanction of the President of India forthe allotment of the land for the specific purpose of setting up of theSupreme Court Archives. On 27 August 2018, the Additional Registrarof the Supreme Court informed the SCBA of the decision to earmark0.50 acres out of the land for the purpose of constructing lawyers’chambers. By a notification dated 1 February 2019, the Union Ministryof Housing and Urban Affairs modified the Master Plan of Delhi - 2021in exercise of powers under Section 11A(2) of the Delhi DevelopmentAct 1957 by which the land use of the land located in Planning Zone-3was changed to ‘Government Office’.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

A13. The Secretary General also submitted that the decision to usethe land for the Supreme Court Archives as well as the decision to allocate0.5 acres of the land for construction of lawyers’ chambers is inaccordance with the direction of the then Chief Justice of India and thematter regarding the development of the land is pending considerationbefore the Judges Committee. The Secretary General has submittedBthat the suggestion of the petitioner that the Supreme Court Archives bere-shifted to Blocks ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the Additional Building Complex orthe Annexe Building cannot be accepted as the space available in thoselocations is inadequate. It has been submitted that the decision to earmark0.5 acres for the construction of lawyers’ chambers was taken afterCcareful deliberation bearing in mind that a chamber block has also beenrecently constructed in the Additional Building Complex for members ofthe Bar.

14. During the course of the deliberations at the oral hearing, theBench has indicated that it is fully cognizant of the needs of the lawyersDappearing before the Supreme Court who are vital stakeholders in theadministration of justice. Moreover, it was also noted during the courseof the dialogue that the litigants are stakeholders as well and while creatingor upgrading the existing amenities, the interest and welfare of litigantshas to be duly recognized and protected.E15. The narration of submissions would indicate that while MrVikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the SCBAhas sought a resolution of the demand raised in the petition on the judicialside, SCAORA and the Bar Council of India, on the other hand, indicatedthat they would wish to have the issue addressed on the administrativeFside so that an appropriate view can be taken by this Courtadministratively after deliberation with their representatives.

16. There is no gainsaying in the fact that the members of theBar, together with the litigants, have an important role in the functioningof the judicial institution of the Supreme Court. During the course of theGhearing, we have abundantly indicated to the learned senior counsel thatthe views of the Bar would be solicited and deliberations will take placeon the administrative side with the members of the Associations and theBar Council.

17. The learned Attorney General for India has, in the samemanner, as SCAORA and the Bar Council of India, indicated that theH

issue needs to be taken up on the administrative side and not on thejudicial side.

18. We are categorically of the view that it would not be appropriateto entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking adirection that the entirety of the land admeasuring 1.33 acres should beallotted for the construction of a chamber block for lawyers.

19. On 27 August 2018, the Additional Registrar of the SupremeCourt of India addressed a communication to the Honorary Secretary ofthe SCBA stating that 0.50 acres out of 1.33 acres of land shall beearmarked for the construction of lawyers’ chambers subject to a changeof land use by the concerned authority. Mr Vikas Singh, learned seniorcounsel appearing for the SCBA urged that a direction for the change ofland use has to be adjudicated only on the judicial side. However, thismay not be a correct perception. Issues pertaining to the change of landuse, as indicated in the letter dated 27 August 2018, are eminently suitablefor being addressed on the administrative side.

20. SCBA cannot assert a right to the entirety of the landadmeasuring 1.33 acres, which has been allotted by the Union governmentfor housing the Supreme Court Archives, for converting it into a chamberblock for lawyers. The Supreme Court of India discharges both judicialand administrative functions. The discharge of its functions implicatesdiverse stakeholders including lawyers, litigants and the staff engaged inactivities of the Supreme Court. A holistic view has to be taken on theallocation of available resources by balancing the needs of stakeholdersboth for the present and the future. These are matters which cannot beresolved by the application of judicial standards and have to be taken upon the administrative side of the Supreme Court. Administrativefunctioning and decision-making, which the current issue requires, cannotbe moved to the judicial side.

21. Apart from prayer ‘a’ which seeks the conversion of theentirety of the land admeasuring 1.33 acres to a chamber block forlawyers, the petitioners have also sought the conversion of the entirearea around Supreme Court as a Supreme Court Block so that all buildingsacross the Supreme Court on Bhagwan Das Road can be utilized forconversion to lawyers’ chambers. The petitioner has also sought theallotment of a government bungalow presently occupied by the ForeignCorrespondents’ Club to the petitioner. Such directions cannot be issuedon the judicial side.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A22. We therefore are unable to subscribe to the reliefs whichhave been sought in the petition under Article 32. However, we leave itopen to the Supreme Court of India on its administrative side to takeappropriate decisions bearing in mind the needs of the institution for thepresent and the future and the interest of all stakeholders. The processof decision making would also involve consultation with the Bar.BSCAORA, SCBA and BCI would be at liberty to address the issue withtheir representations on the administrative side. The writ petitions shallaccordingly stand disposed of in the above terms.

Ankit Gyan

C(Assisted by : Dayaar, LCRA)

Writ petitions disposed of.

D

E

F

G

H