Holding

Appearances as a party in person do not count towards the 50‑appearance eligibility criterion, and the petitioner’s application was rightly rejected for failing to meet that requirement.

Summary

The petitioner, a junior (non‑advocate‑on‑record) of the Supreme Court, applied for allotment of lawyers' chambers but was rejected for not proving the required 50 appearances in each of the two preceding years. He submitted photocopies of cause lists and an affidavit, many of which showed him as a "Petitioner in Person" rather than as an advocate. The Court held that such appearances cannot be counted towards the eligibility criterion and that the Registry correctly excluded them. It further observed that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to furnish proper proof and that the procedure followed by the Allotment Committee was fair. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to meet the statutory eligibility requirements.

Issues considered

Do appearances as "Petitioner in Person" satisfy the 50‑appearance eligibility requirement for junior advocates under the Lawyers Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules?
Was the petitioner's application rejected after a fair and due consideration by the Registry and the Allotment Committee?
Does the rejection of the petitioner's application amount to discrimination on religious grounds violating constitutional guarantees?

Subjects

Lawyers' chambers allotmentEligibility criteriaJunior advocateSupreme Court Bar AssociationProcedural fairnessReligious discrimination claimPetitioner in person

Judgment

A AEL TEMESH REIN
v.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SEPTEMBER 3, 2001

B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.)

(Supreme Court) Lawyers Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules:
Rule 2.
-
C Lawyers Chambers-Allotment of-Eligibility Criterion-50 appearances
(excluding appearances in miscellaneous applications) in each year-
Advocate 's application rejected for non-fulfilment of eligibility criterion--
Correctness of-Held: Appearance as 'Petitioner in Person' cannot be treated
r::s appearance as an Advocate-Therefore, such appearances are to be excluded
from the total number of appearances-Hence, application rightly rejected as
D the Advocate failed to furnish proof of 50 appearances.

The petitioner was a Junior Advocate (Non-Adovcate-on-Record) of The
Supreme Court and was also a member of the Supreme Court Bar
Association. The petitioner's application for allotment of Lawyers Chambers
E was rejected as he could not furnish proof of 50 appearances (excluding
appearances in miscellaneous applications) for each year of the preceding two
years. Hence this petition.

Dismissing the petition, the Court

HELD: I. It is no doubt true that the names of Junior Advocates (Non-
F Advocates-on-Record) do not appear in the cause lists issued by this Court
but the petitioner had sought to produce photocopies of certain cause lists
and filing memos in an attempt to furnish proof of the claimed number of
appearances. Those cases in which the petitioner had appeared as a "Petitioner
in Person" cannot be treated to be cases in which he had appeared as an
G Advocate but as a "Party in Person". Therefore, the Registry rightly excluded
those cases from consideration. [517-G, H; 518-A, B]

2. In matters of this n~ture, all that needs to be considered is whether
there has been a fair and due consideration of the matter by the authorities
concerned. In this case, from the proceedings made available to this Court it
H is clear that the petitioner had more than a fair deal. He was given several
514
AELTEMESH REIN v. S.C.I. [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 515
opportunities to place the necessary materials to furnish satisfactorily the A
number of SO appearances during each of the preceding two years and having
failed to furnish such proof, the petitioner was not eligible for allotment of
chambers. [518-D-El

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition (C) No. 99 of
2000. B
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

In-person for the Petitioner.

Harish N. Salve, Solicitor General, Shri Narain, Sandeep Narain, Ms. C
Anjali, Anil Kumar Mittal for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAJENDRA BABU, J. : The petitioner is a Junior Advocate [Non-
Advocate-on-Record] of this Court and he has been a member of the Supreme D
Court Bar Association with effect from 12.11.1984. On August 8, 1995,
applications were invited in the prescribed format for allotment of chambers
by the Registry of this Court and the petitioner applied for the same. He was
informed on 28.2.1999 by the Registry of this Court asking him to furnish
the proof of appearances to enable them to finalise his application for allotment E
of chambers. The petitioner had filed an affidavit of Shri K.K.Gupta, Advocate-
on-Record to the following effect:

"I. That as per my records Mr. Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate has been
getting his cases filed in the Supreme Court through me for the last
several years and many a times his appearance in those cases could F
not be given by me as I am too old and often remain ill. The
accompanying list of his cases filed by him are the cases most of
which have been filed by & through me in the Supreme Court for
him and at his instructions, which cases have been conducted by
himself in the Supreme Court."
G
Not being satisfied with the material placed by the petitioner either in
the shape of cause list or in the nature of this affidavit and having rejected
his claim for allotment of chambers, this petition is filed. The claim of the
petitioner for allotment of chambers is resisted by the respondent.

The matter of allotment of chambers to advocates is governed by H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Lawyers Chambers [Allotment and Occupancy] Rules. Under Rule 2 of the
said Rules, Allotment Committee for Lawyers Chambers has been constituted
which consists of the following.

"I. Attorney General for India - Chainnan
2. President, Supreme Court Bar Association - Member
B
3. Vice President, Supreme Court Bar Association - Member
4. Hony. Secretary, Supreme Court Bar Association - Member
5. President, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record
Association - Member
c 6. Registrar (Admn.), Supreme Court of India - Member
7. Registrar (Judi.), Supreme Court of India - Member
8. Joint Registrar (Admn.), Supreme Court of India - Member"
The recommendations of the Allotment Committee for Lawyers
Chambers are placed before a Committee of three Hon'ble Judges of this
D Court designated by the Hon 'ble the Chief Justice oflndia for its consideration
and opinion and thereafter the entire matter is placed before the Hon 'ble the
Chief Justice of India for final decision. The eligibility criteria and the mode
and manner of allotment of chambers are that application has to be made in
a prescribed form accompanied by a list of cases filed/appearances made
E during the period 1.1.1993 to 31.12.1993 and 1.1.1994 to 31.12.1994 and
was to contain fu'1her specific details including cause numbers, cause titles
and the dates of filing/appearances in such cases during the said period. Such
application was to be made on or before 31.3.1996.

In respect of Junior Advocates (Non-Advocates-on-Record], the
p eligibility criteria is as follows:
(A) All Junior Advocates [Non-Advocates-on-Record], who are
mainly and regularly practicing in the Supreme Court and are the
Members of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
(B) They must have put in not less than fifty appearances (Admission
G and Regular Hearing matters excluding CMPs and Cr.MPs.) each
year during the preceding two years prior to the date of inviting
application in the Supreme Court of India.
(C) Subject to the above two requirements being complied with, the
seniority of such persons shall be based on the date of their
H present admission to the active membership of the Supreme Court.
AELTEMESH REIN v. S.C.I. [RAJENDRA BA.BU, J.] 517
Bar Association. A
On this basis, the application filed by the petitioner was scrutinized and
found to be defective inasmuch as the list of appearances filed with his
application did not tally with the records of the Registry of this Court.
Thereafter, a letter was addressed to him on 31. 7 .1996 requesting him to
furnish proofs in support of his list. The petitioner did not respond to the said B
letter. The Chamber Allotment Committee considered all the applications and
after due deliberation prepared a list of eligible Advocates in each category
for allotment of chambers and the petitioner could not find a place in the said
list.

Thereafter, on 3.8.1998, the petitioner made a representation to Hon 'ble C
the Chief Justice of India that he was discriminated against on religious
grounds and his name was for that reason not kept in the list of allotment of
chambers whereas Advocates junior to him were on the list of eligible
Advocates to whom chambers would be allotted. That representation was
rejected. On 7.10.1998, the lists for allotment of chambers were finalised and D
actual allotments were also made. On 13.10.1998, the petitioner sent a letter
to the Registry accompanied by an affidavit of Mr. K.K.Gupta, to which we
have adverted to earlier, stating that "the cases filed by him were actually
given for filing by Shri Rein" and the petitioner, by his letter dated 28. l 0.1998,
once again requested for personal hearing before the Allotment Committee.
The Chambers Allotment Committee in its meeting held on 17.12.1998 asked E
the petitioner to furnish adequate proof of his appearances for the relevant
period as per the prescribed criteria, that is, 50 appearances in each yea.r
[excluding appearances in miscellaneous applications]. The request for personal
hearing was not heeded to but resolved to consider his application upon his
furnishing such proof of his appearances. On 30.3.1999, the petitioner provided F
the Registry with only 31 copies of proceedings for the year 1993 and only
27 copies of proceedings for the year 1994. In fact, a perusal of those
proceedings will indicate that the petitioner is not shown by name in 8 of
such proceedings for the year 1993 and 5 of such proceedings for the year
1994. Thus the number of appearances stood further reduced which is far
below the prescribed eligibility. It is no doubt true that the names of Junior G
Advocates [Non-Advocates-on-Record) do not appear in the cause lists issued
by this Court but the petitioner had sought to produce photocopies of certain
cause lists and filing memos in an attempt to furnish proof of the claimed
number of appearances. Out of the cause lists/memos of 41 cases for the year
. 1993, the name of Mr.K.K.Gupta alone appears in 26 cases and in remaining H
518 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 2 S.CJL

A 15 cases, the name of the petitioner is shown in the category of "Petitioner
in Person" and not as an Advocate. Again for the year 1994, out of 39 copies
of cause lists or memos, the name of Mr. K.K.Gupta is shown in 10 cases and
tJ:at of the petitioner in 29 cases, but in the category of"Petitioner in Person".
So, those cases in which he had appeared as a "Petitioner in Person" cannot
be treated to be cases in which he bad appeared as an Advocate but as a
B "Party in Person". Therefore, the Registry rightly excluded those cases from
consideration. Thus, the position stood the same as it was originally when on
an earlier occasion the. name of the petitioner did not figure in the list of
applicants selected for allotment of chambers.

C We directed the Registry to place before us all the original records,
proceedings of the relevant Committees and the decision taken by Hon 'ble
the Chief Justice of India We have carefully gone through the same and we
hardly fmd any justification fer us to interfere .with the action of the respondent.
In matters of this nature, all that needs to be considered is whether there has
been a fair and due consideration of the matter by the authorities concerned.
D In this case, from the proceedings made available to us, we dare say that the
petitioner had more than a fair deal. He was given several opportunities to
place the necessary material to furnish satisfactorily nm\lber of 50 appearances
during each of the year 1993 and 1994 and having failed to furnish such
proof, the petitioner was not eligible for allotment of chambers. Hence we do
E not think any relief can be granted as sought for by the petitioner in this case.

The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. No costs.

v.s.s. Appeal dismissed.