Summary
The Supreme Court disposed of challenges to lawyers’ chamber allotment conditions by modifying eligibility for the 2018 exercise, including a block period of 1 October 2013 to 30 September 2018. It upheld the Supreme Court Bar Association membership requirement and declined continuous receipt of applications, directing invitations at least once in three years. Extension of residence eligibility beyond Delhi/New Delhi was left to the Judges’ Allotment Committee for a final decision.
Issues
- What modifications were appropriate to chamber-allotment eligibility and the block period.
- Whether SCBA membership and Delhi/New Delhi residence requirements should be changed.
- Whether applications should be continuously accepted.
Provisions considered
- Rules 3 and 4, Supreme Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) RulesSCBA membership was retained. The residence question was left for committee consideration, while the accepted eligibility proposals operated within the category-based allotment framework. (¶¶ 4, 20, 22, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40)
Held
- The Court accepted suggestions 1, 2, 3 and 6–9 of the submitted note, including the specified filing or appearance alternatives, counting government matters subject to exclusions, and allotment according to present category under the 7:2:1 allocation. These did not create an unconditional entitlement to a chamber. (¶¶ 20, 22, 24, 36)
- A block extending back to 2004 would fail to test recent active practice. For this exercise the block period was fixed at 1 October 2013 to 30 September 2018. (¶¶ 24, 25)
- Continuous applications were rejected in favour of invitations linked to chamber availability and a proximate practice period. Invitations should nevertheless issue at least once in three years. (¶ 26)
- There was no fundamental or statutory right to a chamber. The SCBA membership condition was upheld, having regard also to the membership requirement in SCAORA’s own rules. Requests by persons subsequently joining SCBA were left to the Chambers Committee. (¶¶ 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38)
- Changed residential patterns justified reconsidering Delhi/New Delhi residence eligibility. Whether to include nearby areas, potentially by radial distance, was for the Judges’ Allotment Committee to decide after considering relevant factors. The Court did not itself extend the boundary. (¶¶ 39, 40)
- All writ petitions were disposed of in these terms. (¶ 41)
Result
Writ petitions disposed of with the specified eligibility modifications and 2013–2018 block period. SCBA membership retained; invitations at least once in three years. Residence-boundary reconsideration left to the Judges’ Allotment Committee.