GOPAL JHAversusTHE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        [2018] 13 S.C.R. 517                              517


                            GOPAL JHA                                     A
                                  v.
          THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018)
                        OCTOBER 25, 2018                                  B
          [A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
       Supreme Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and
Occupancy) Rules – Supreme Court invited applications for
allotment of Lawyers’ chambers on 31st October. 2017 and 16th May,        C
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         D
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        E
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       F
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         G
member of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for
submitting application for allotment of chambers – Constitution of
India – Art. 14.


                                                                          H
                                 517
518            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A           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
B     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
C     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
D     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
E     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
F     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
G     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]

H
 GOPAL JHA v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                       519


      1.2 Applications for allotment of chambers were last invited     A
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       B
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              C
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         D
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         E
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       F
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           G
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]

                                                                       H
520            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 13 S.C.R.


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,
B
            Supreme Court of India & Ors. (1998) 7 SCC 461
            – referred to.
                              Case Law Reference
            [2017] 7 SCR 797               referred to         Para 27
C           [2011] 15 SCR 736              referred to         Para 28
            [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 186       referred to          Para 28
            (1998) 7 SCC 461              referred to          Para 34

D
            CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil)
      No. 745 of 2018
            Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
                                       WITH
E           Writ 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., Gopal
      Sankaranarayanan, Ms. Pooja Dhar, Surya Prakash, Ms. Aishwarya
F     Kane, Ms. Gaytri Verma, Javed Mahmud Rao, Dilip Raghuvanshi,
      Ms. Isha Singh, Gautam Singh, Kumar Ranjan, Adarsh Verma, Varun
      K. Chopra, Kaushik Poddar, Ashok Kumar, Praveen Swarup, Ananya
      Mishra, Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Pramod Dayal, Nikunj Dayal,
      Ms. Payal Dayal, B. Raghunath, R. Venkataraman, Sriram P.,
G     A. Lakshminarayanan, Abhimanue Shrestha, Ms. K. R. Chitra, Anirudh
      Sanganeria, Vikram Gulati, Annam D. N. Rao, Vikrant Yadav, Manish
      Goswami, Rajiv Kumar, Ms. Ashita Chawla, Parangal Pandey, Advs.
      for the appearing parties.
            Gopal Jha, Petitioner-in-person.
H           M. R. Shamshad, Petitioner-in-person
 GOPAL JHA v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                            521


      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                            A
       A. K. SIKRI, J. 1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are the
practicing advocates who also claim that they are regularly practicing
and appearing in the Supreme Court. Some of them are advocates on
record (AOR), while others do not fall under this category. They are
not designated senior advocates either and, therefore, can be put in the    B
category of ‘other advocates’/’non-advocate on record’. All these
petitioners are desirous of getting a chamber in the Lawyers Chamber
Block in the Supreme Court.
       2. This Court, on administrative side, has framed Supreme Court
Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules (hereinafter              C
referred to as the ‘Chamber Allotment Rules’) which govern the
procedure for allotment of chambers within the compound of Supreme
Court. These rules lay down the eligibility criteria for allotment of
chambers. In accordance with these rules, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of
India (CJI) has also constituted the Judges’ Allotment Committee. It
comprises of Hon’ble Judges of this Court, nominated by CJI. There is       D
another Committee as well, which is headed by the Attorney General
for 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), the
CJI ordinarily allots chambers to the advocates.                            E
      3. In the year 1995, a recommendation was made by the Allotment
Committee for allotment of chambers to AOR, non-advocates on record
(other advocates) and senior advocates in the ratio of 7:2:1. This
recommendation was accepted by the CJI on August 29, 1995. Since
then, allotment is made in the aforesaid ratio to the aforesaid three       F
categories of advocates.
      4. Relevant Chamber Allotment Rules, with which we are
concerned in these petitions, may be reproduced below:
      “2. Allotment of Chambers shall be made by a Committee
      appointed by the Chief Justice of India and all such allotments       G
      shall be subject to the approval of the Chief Justice of India.
      3. Allotment shall be made to such advocates of the Supreme
      Court as are members of the Supreme Court Bar Association
      who regularly practice in the Supreme Court and who reside in
      Delhi or New Delhi.                                                   H
522      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A     4. Allotment of chambers to applicants, who are members of the
      Supreme Court Bar Association, shall be made in the following
      order:
      (i) Advocates-on-Record who are regularly practising in this
      Court;
B     (ii) Non Advocates-on-Record resident in Delhi/New Delhi and
      who are mainly and regularly practising in this Court; and
      (iii) Senior Advocates resident in Delhi/New Delhi and who are
      mainly and regularly practising in this Court.

C        Provided, however, that allotment shall be made in accordance
      with 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, seventh
      and eighth vacancies to Advocates-on-Record, ninth vacancy to
D     the Non Advocates-on-Record and tenth vacancy to Senior
      Advocates and the cycle shall be repeated in the above order.
                xx               xx                xx
      18. The Chief Justice may in his discretion cancel any allotment
      where an allottee infringes any condition of allotment or violates
E     any rule governing the allotment or for any other reason.
                xx               xx                xx
      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 charges
      for the two successive months; or
      (d) On the allottee ceasing to be a member of the Supreme Court
      Bar Association; or
G
      (e) On the allottes’ name being removed from the Roll of a State
      Bar Council; or
      (f) On an allottee of a chamber not complying with the orders of
      the Allotment Committee, as approved by the Hon’ble Chief Justice
H     of India; or
 GOPAL JHA v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                 523
                   [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

       (g)   On the death of an allottee; or                                     A
       (h) On the allottee being elevated to the Bench of the High
       Court/Supreme Court.
            Provided, however, that the allottees’ name shall be put first
       in the respective category of the waiting list, if such member on         B
       his/her retirement joins back the practice and is made active
       member of Supreme Court Bar Association on his/her application
       for allotment.
                  xx                xx                xx
       23. The Chief Justice of India may from time to time make such            C
       amendments and additions to these Rules as may be necessary
       and expedient.
       24. If any question arises as to the interpretation of these Rules,
       the decision of the Chief Justice of India shall be final.”
                                                                                 D
       5. It may be mentioned that the allotment to these chambers is
made on the availability thereof and, at that time, applications for allotment
of chambers are invited. This exercise was conducted last time in the
year 2004. Thereafter, i.e. after a gap of thirteen years, the Supreme
Court invited applications for allotment of Lawyers’ chambers on October
31, 2017 and May 16, 2018 vide Notice inviting applications where                E
eligibility 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 Court
       Bar Association and fulfill the following eligibility criteria for        F
       updating the existing Panels for allotment of Lawyers Chambers:
       1. SENIOR ADVOCATES
       (a) Who are mainly and regularly practising in the Supreme Court.
                                                                                 G
       (b) Who must have minimum of 50 appearances (Admission and
       regular hearing matters excluding I.A.s/Cr.M.P.s) each year for
       any two consecutive years between 01.06.2011 and 30.06.2016.
       (Registrar’s Court Appearance shall not be taken into
       consideration).
                                                                                 H
524            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A           (c) Subject to the above two requirements being complied with,
            the allotment shall be made based on priority of the date of their
            being designated as Senior Advocate.
            2. ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD
            (a) Who must have filed (or entered appearances on behalf of
B           respondents) on an average 20 cases per annum (i.e. admission/
            regular matters and not I.A.s/Cr.M.Ps and Government Filing) in
            the course of any two consecutive years between 01.06.2011 and
            30.06.2016 (a batch of cases shall be treated as a single case).
            (b) Subject to the above requirements being complied with, the
C           allotment shall be made according to the date of seniority i.e. the
            date of registration as AOR.
            3. JUNIOR ADVOCATE (NON ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD)
            (a) Who are mainly and regularly practising in the Supreme Court.
D           (b) Who must have put in not less than fifty appearances
            (Admission and regular hearing matters excluding I.As. and
            Cr.M.Ps.) each year for any two consecutive years between
            01.06.2011 and 30.06.2016.
            (c) Subject to the above two requirements being complied with,
E           the seniority of such persons shall be based on the date of their
            present admission to the active membership of the Supreme Court
            Bar Association.”
             6. As is clear from the above, one of the eligibility conditions for
      AOR was filing of twenty cases per annum in the course of any two
F     consecutive years between June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016 and for other
      advocates, 50 appearances each year for any two consecutive years
      between June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016. Further, as far as seniority is
      concerned, in respect of AOR, it was to be from the date of registration
      as AOR. For other advocates, seniority is to be based on the date of
      their admission to the active membership of SCBA. For senior advocates,
G     allotment is to be made on priority on th date of their being designated as
      senior advocates.
            7. Some advocates including the petitioners herein felt aggrieved
      by one or the other eligibility conditions, depending upon the category in
      which they fall. They sent representations to SCBA as well as Secretary
H
 GOPAL JHA v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                 525
                   [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

General, Supreme Court of India, requesting for change of criteria for           A
eligibility of allotment of chambers. Specific grievance was with respect
to the fixation of block period between June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016
for which the requirement of filing and/or appearance has to be fulfilled.
As per the petitioners, the matter was dealt with by the Chamber
Allotment Committee headed by the Attorney General and some
                                                                                 B
amendments were carried out. On that basis, SCBA issued circular for
its members on March 15, 2018 mentioning the changes, accepted by
the Chamber Allotment Committee. This circular reads as under:
      “The Letter dated 09.01.2018 was discussed at length in today’s
      Chambers Allotment Committee Meeting and the recommendations
      made therein have been accepted by the Committee to the extent             C
      detailed below:
      (i) Calendar Year now will be January to December instead of
      June to May.
      (ii) The period of eligibility for filing/appearances shall be from
      01.01.2004 to 31st December 2017 (Two consecutive years).                  D

      (iii) Self Attested proceedings print out from the website i.e.
      www.sci.gov.in shall be sufficient compliance for consideration
      for Chambers Allotment, instead of certified copy.
      (iv) Self Attested proceedings shall be filed along with prescribed
                                                                                 E
      notarized format (Registry shall inform the format in due course).
      (v) Complete set of application in physical form be submitted in
      the Registry besides online applications which may be submitted
      by the applicants, if they so opt.
      (vi) Filing of Government cases is also included as eligibility criteria
                                                                                 F
      for Central Government as well as State Government Standing
      Counsels.
      (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.
                                                                                 G
      (viii) Further, in case of Company of two or more AORs, all AOR
      partners will separately be entitled for allotment of Chambers with
      separate set of cases (with the consent of other partners that
      they shall not use the same set of cases for their individual
      allotment).
                                                                                 H
526            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A           (ix) Members who were Voters of SCBA from 2012 till the last
            election i.e. December, 2017, based on B.D. Kaushik’s Judgments
            passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, shall also be entitled
            to apply for Chambers Allotment (in any year within the above
            mentioned period).
B           (x) Fresh Vakalatnama after obtaining NOC from the previous/
            earlier AOR shall also be counted separately for the subsequent
            AOR.
            (xi) Filing of Caveat is not to be counted.
            (xii) The use of word “Junior Advocate” for Non AOR shall not
C           be used in any proceeding/notification. Categories may be referred
            to as “Senior Advocate”, “Advocate on Record” and “Advocate”.
            (xiii) Further time has been extended for submission of applications
            for Chambers Allotment till 30th April 2018. (Notification shall be
            issued in due course).
D
            (xiv) Appearance before Mediation Committee shall not be
            counted.”
             8. However, the opinion of the Judges’ Allotment Committee was
      at variance with some of the aforesaid suggestion. It was considered at
      the appropriate level and a decision was taken.
E
             9. Thereafter, revised notice dated May 16, 2018 was issued by
      the Administration General Branch of the Supreme Court for inviting
      applications for allotment of Lawyers Chambers and the eligibility criteria
      for three category of advocates was stated in the following terms:
F           “1. SENIOR ADVOCATES
            (a) Who are mainly and regularly practising in the Supreme Court.
            (b) Who must have minimum of 50 appearances (Admission and
            regular hearing matters excluding I.A.s/Cr.M.P.s save and except
            interim applications in Public Interest Litigations which are
G           *substantive applications and decided by the Court and such
            petitions like Special Leave Petitions filed with applications for
            condonation of delay and listed in Court with Diary Number and
            disposed of with diary number by the Court) each year either for
            any two consecutive years between 01.06.2011 and 30.06.2016
H           or for any two non-consecutive years between 01.06.2011 and
GOPAL JHA v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                           527
                  [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

   30.06.2016 provided the Advocate/Applicant concerned availing          A
   the option of appearances during two non-consecutive years has
   been on the Voters’ list of Supreme Court Bar Association for the
   entire block period. (Registrar’s Court Appearance shall not be
   taken into consideration).
   (c) Subject to the above two requirements being complied with,         B
   the allotment shall be made based on priority of the date of their
   being designated as Senior Advocate.
   2. ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD
   (a) Who must have filed (or entered appearances on behalf of
   respondents) on an average 20 cases per annum (i.e. admission/         C
   regular matters and not I.A.s/Cr.M.Ps and Government Filing save
   and except interim applications in Public Interest Litigations which
   are *substantive applications and decided by the Court and such
   petitions like Special Leave Petitions filed with applications for
   condonation of delay and listed in Court with Diary Number and         D
   disposed of with diary number by the Court) each year for any
   two consecutive years between 01.06.2011 and 30.06.2016 or for
   any two non-consecutive years between 01.06.2011 and
   30.06.2016 provided the Advocate/Applicant concerned availing
   the option of filing during two non-consecutive years has been on
   the Voters’ list of Supreme Court Bar Association for the entire       E
   block period (a batch of cases shall be treated as a single case).
   (b) Subject to the above requirements being complied with, the
   allotment shall be made according to the date of seniority i.e. the
   date of registration as AOR.
                                                                          F
   3. NON-ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD
   (a) Who are mainly and regularly practising in the Supreme Court.
   (b) Who must have put in not less than fifty appearances
   (Admission and regular hearing matters excluding I.As. and
   Cr.M.Ps. save and except interim applications in Public Interest       G
   Litigations which are *substantive applications and decided by
   the Court and such petitions like Special Leave Petitions filed
   with applications for condonation of delay and listed in Court with
   Diary Number and disposed of with diary number by the Court)
   each year either for any two consecutive years between 01.06.2011
                                                                          H
528             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A           and 30.06.2016 or for any two non-consecutive years between
            01.06.2011 and 30.06.2016 provided the Advocate/Applicant
            concerned availing the option of appearances during two non-
            consecutive years has been on the Voters’ list of Supreme Court
            Bar 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 their
            present admission to the active membership of the Supreme Court
            Bar Association.
             *(For illustration, substantive applications may be referred to such
             interim applications by the project proponent or the applicant itself
C
             as are filed in Public Interest Litigation entitled ‘T.N. Godavarman
             Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors.’ and decided by the Court
             as Such)”
             10. As demand of the advocates, particularly with respect to block
      period was not met, the SCBA took up the matter again by addressing
D     communication dated July 18, 2018 to CJI wherein it was stated that
      following provisions pertaining to allotment of chambers were not
      incorporated in the notice dated May 16, 2018 which was issued for
      inviting applications for allotment of chambers:
            “1. Eligibility of Advocates who had requisite number of filing/
E           appearances from Calendar year January – December 2004 to
            December 2017 instead of May 2011 to June 2016.
            2. Requisite Calendar year shall be 1st January to 31st December
            instead of filing/appearance year 1st July to 30th June.
            3. Number of filing by Advocates-on-Record of Government/State
F           Cases 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 satisfying
            the filing criteria in less than 2 years, be included in the panel of
            Advocates-On-Record in order of their seniority as Advocate-
G           On-Record.
            5. Similarly, AORs and Non-AORs subsequently designated as
            Senior Advocates from 2016 onwards, satisfying the eligibility
            norms as Advocates-On-Record/Non Advocates-On-Record be
            included in the panel of Senior Advocates in chronology of being
            designated as Senior Advocate.”
H
 GOPAL JHA v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                            529
                   [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

       11. Some of the petitioners herein also made representations to      A
the Supreme Court raising their specific grievances qua the aforesaid
notice dated May 16, 2018. As per them, since their grievance have not
been 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:          B
  Sl. No.        Cause Title                   Relief Sought
     1      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.
     2      Anirudh    Sanganeria, Calendar year to be taken as January-    C
            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
                                                                            D
            No. 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          E
                               mandates 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.
     6      Shirin Khajuria, WP(C) (i) AOR should be permitted to apply     F
            No. 917/2018           in the category of Non-AOR.
                                   (ii) Third category to be renamed as
                                   Advocate.
     7      V. Mohana, WP(C) No. Extend cut-off date from 31.06.2016
            997/2018             and in the alternative quash notice
                                                                            G
                                 dated 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              31.12.2017
                                                                            H
530            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A

          9   Jaikriti S. Jadej a &      Ors., Cut-off period be extended till
              WP(C) No. 947/2018               31.12.2017.
         10   M.R. Shamshad, WP(C) No. Quashing of Condition 2(a) of
              998/2018                 revised      notice     invi ting
B                                      applicat ions for allotment of
                                       Lawyers      Chambers     dated
                                       16.05.2018.
         11   Vikram 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 SCB A and to
                                        include NCR to the place of
                                        residence.
                                        (ii i) Calendar year to be from
D                                       January 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 have
      been raised in these writ petitions:
             (i) Change of Block Period: Notice dated May 16, 2018 mentions
      the block period from June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016. Different petitioners
F     have suggested different block periods which are: (a) block period should
      be 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 May
      31, 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 from
      June to June. The suggestion is that it should be taken as January to
      December.
            (iii) Clause 3 of the Allotment Rules as per which allotment can
      be made to those advocates only who are members of SCBA is
      challenged inter alia by contending that apart from SCBA, there is an
H
 GOPAL JHA v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                               531
                   [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

association of AOR as well, known as SCAORA and it should be                   A
sufficient when a person is a member of SCAORA.
      (iv) Requirement of minimum filings of AOR and appearances by
senior 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 it       B
should not be changed.
      (v) An incidental issue is also raised as to whether Supreme Court
should invite the applications for allotment of chambers by issuing specific
notices from time to time or it should be a continuous process.
                                                                               C
       14. Notices in these petitions were issued. Registrar, Supreme
Court of India has filed reply affidavits in some of these writ petitions
which cover all the issues raised. It is, inter alia, stated that Chamber
Allotment Committee consisting of the learned Attorney General for
India, as a Chairman and the Presidents, Vice-Presidents and Hony.
Secretaries of SCBA and SCAORA as Members, in its meeting held on              D
November 18, 2015, approved the draft notification inviting applications
for empanelment of lawyers for allotment of chambers vide Agenda
Item No. 10. Vide this resolution, it was, inter alia, agreed that the
block period should be from January 01, 2009 to December 31, 2014.
Soon after the aforesaid recommendations, a number of letters/                 E
representations from the advocates were received by the Registry praying
for change in the block period. The Chamber Allotment Committee
headed by the learned Attorney General for India again convened a
meeting on May 11, 2016 and after consideration, the requests of the
advocates vide Agenda Item No. 2, inter alia, resolved in connection
with the block period as under:                                                F
      “The Committee perused the aforesaid letters vis-a-vis the Office
      Report and resolved that since the year 2015 has already gone by,
      the earlier approved Block Period (01.01.2009 to 31.12.2014) may
      now be changed to new Block Period (01.01.2010 to 31.12.2015)
      so that more and more eligible Advocates may apply.”                     G
      15. The aforementioned recommendations were placed for
approval and orders before the Hon’ble Judges Committee for approving
allotment of Lawyers Chambers and thereafter, were also placed before
the CJI. The comments made by the Registry in this regard were also
                                                                               H
532            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A     placed before the Hon’ble Judges Committee on July 11, 2016.
      Considering the comments made by the Registry that chambers in Pragati
      Maidan will be available sometime in the end of 2017 and if block period
      is confined to the year 2015 as resolved by the Chamber Allotment
      committee headed by the learned Attorney General for India, advocates
      who may complete minimum number of appearances after 2015 may
B
      not apply for allotment and, therefore, it was submitted for consideration,
      if the block period should be upto December 31, 2015 or June 30, 2016
      or some other dates.
             16. The Hon’ble Judges Committee, inter alia, recommended
      that the block period may be changed so as to make it from June 01,
C     2011 to June 30, 2016. The same was also approved by the then CJI
      vide order dated July 28, 2016. Accordingly, notification dated October
      31, 2017 inviting online application for empanelment of Lawyers for
      allotment of chambers was issued.
             17. Since, representations were received against this notification
D     also from certain advocates and even SCBA. These representations
      were placed before Chamber Allotment Committee headed by the learned
      Attorney General for India in its meeting dated March 15, 2018 wherein
      recommendation was made, as already noted above. It was placed
      before the Judges Committee on March 27, 2018. The Judges Committee,
E     however, did not accept the same in its entirety. The earlier block period
      already notified i.e. June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016 was recommended to
      be retained as unaltered while some of the recommendations were
      accepted. However, before the aforesaid recommendation of the Judges
      Committee could be considered by the CJI, the SCBA again reiterated
      its request. Because of this reason, Judges Committee again assembled
F     on May 9, 2018 wherein hearing was given to the President and Hony.
      Secretary of SCBA. The Judges Committee, however, did not agree to
      change the block period, but recommended the following changes:
            “In addition to the requirement of having minimum number of
            filings and or appearances in two consecutive years in the block
G           period of five preceding years, an applicant who otherwise fulfills
            the criteria of requisite number of filings and or appearances even
            in two non-consecutive years in the block period of preceding
            five years shall also be eligible provided he was on the voters’ list
            of Supreme Court Bar Association for the entire block period of
H           five years.”
 GOPAL JHA v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                              533
                   [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

      “...that such petitions which are disposed of with diary number by      A
      the Court may also be reckoned for computing the requisite number
      of filings and or appearances.”
      “...that interim applications in Public Interest Litigations which
      are substantive applications and decided by the Court as such
      shall also be counted towards the requisite number of filings and       B
      or 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 which
      notice was issued. Accordingly, Judges Committee resolved in its        C
      meeting held on July 30, 2018 as under:
      “The Committee understands that the issue regarding allotment
      of chambers is pending consideration before the Bench presided
      over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri. Following order was
      passed by the Bench today:-                                             D
      ‘Issue notice, returnable in two weeks.
      Dasti, in addition, is also permitted.
      The respondents shall endeavour to file their reply before the next
      day of hearing.
                                                                              E
      We are informed that 31.07.2018 is the last date for making
      application for allotment of chambers. The petitioners herein may
      make their applications which may be received/accepted
      provisionally and kept separately.’
      In the circumstances, the Committee feels it would be inappropriate     F
      to deal with the matter till the pending matter is disposed of on the
      judicial 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 bearers        G
of SCAORA would deliberate on the issues raised and shall try to arrive
at a consensus.
      20. When the matters were taken up on October 4, 2018, the
learned ASG submitted note proposing the solution to the various issues.
                                                                              H
534               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A     The suggestion given in the said ‘Note’ are as under:
            “1.        …
            (i) The consideration of the request for allotment of chambers
            to the members of SCBA belonging to the above mentioned all
            the 3 categories should be for all those who fulfil individual
B           respective criteria in the above mentioned 3 categories by
            30th September, 2018.
            (ii) In other words, any member advocate, who fulfils the
            requirement of 50 appearances per year by 30th September, 2018,
            would become entitled for submitting an application for allotment
C           of chamber to the Registry of the Supreme Court and every such
            application shall be accepted. The Registry would consider a
            period of 730 days (a continuous period of 2 years) at any time
            before 30th September, 2018 and on being satisfied of the fulfilment
            of the relevant criteria, shall accept the application for consideration
D           of allotment of chamber.
            2. Similarly, for all Member AORs who wish to submit their
            application by 30.9.2018 would be required to fulfil minimum of
            20 filings or 50 appearances in a period of one year for two years,
            would have to satisfy the Registry of minimum 40 filings or 100
E           appearances in a period of 730 days of any period as on 30th
            September, 2018. Such applications would also be accepted by
            the Registry of the Supreme Court for allotment of chambers. It
            is clarified that the submission of application for allotment of
            chamber by a member of the SCBA can be on any of the criteria
            for eligibility chosen by the concerned member. In that,
F           notwithstanding that the member is an AOR or a designated Sr.
            Advocate, the application for allotment of chamber can be
            submitted on any of the criteria, namely, criteria of eligibility for
            non-AOR, criteria for eligibility of AOR and criteria for eligibility
            of a Sr. Advocate. However, the allotment of chamber to any
G           such member shall be from the quota of 7:10 or 2:10 or 1:10, as
            the case may be, on the basis of the status held by the member in
            presenti.
            3. Similarly, this cut-off date of 30.9.2018 would apply to the
            category of Member Senior Advocates for applying, with the
            criteria for that category.
H
GOPAL JHA v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                             535
                  [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

   4. This cut-off date of 30.9.2018 shall be subject to any modification   A
   which may be made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, either in the
   hearing scheduled for 20.9.2018 or any date thereafter. In other
   words, the last cut-off date proposed as 30.9.2018 would get
   substituted by the date so decided by the Supreme Court. The
   period of 730 days for fulfilment of the eligibility criteria in the
                                                                            B
   above mentioned separate categories of advocates shall be counted
   from the last cut-off date in 2004 till 30th September, 2018 or any
   other date which may be decided by the Supreme Court.
   5. It is the firm suggestion on behalf of the SCBA that the process
   for lodging/submitting applicatoins for allotment of chambers by
   Members of SCBA, in any of the above mentioned 3 categories,             C
   should be a continuous process, i.e., whenever any member of
   the SCBA belonging to any of the 3 categories fulfils the
   requirement of the criteria prescribed for becoming eligible for
   consideration for allotment of chamber by the Supreme Court,
   his/her application shall be accepted by the Registry. This would        D
   completely eliminate the uncertainty with regard to opening of the
   period for inviting such applications. The procedure/mechanism
   of 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 to
   remain operative continuously would be beneficial to the members         E
   of the SCBA and would also remove possible anomalies and
   irritants in this entire process.
   6. Insofar as the AORs are concerned who have acted as AOR
   for any State Government etc., filing for the respective State
   Government would also be taken towards fulfilment of the criteria        F
   for 20 filings annually.
   7. Similarly, all those Member Advocates (Non-AORs), who have
   remained with Government Panels, their appearances in the
   Government matters would also be counted for the fulfilment of
   eligibility of 50 appearances in a year for becoming eligible for        G
   allotment of chambers.
       In both these cases, filings for the Government and/or
   appearances for the Government, filing of IAs and appearances
   in IAs shall not be counted. Similarly, appearances before the
                                                                            H
536            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A           Ld. Registrar or before the Hon’ble Chamber Judge would also
            not be counted.
            8. In relation to all those Member Advocates who have already
            lodged/submitted their applications for allotment of chambers as
            advocate (Non-AOR) on the basis of the criteria of 50 appearances
B           in a given year for 2 years and have now qualified in the AOR
            examination, they shall be held to be eligible for allotment of
            chambers in the AOR category and the allotment of chamber in
            their favour shall be only from the quota of 7:10 chambers meant
            for the AOR quota.
C           9. Similarly, all those Member Advocates who had submitted their
            applications for allotment of chambers at an earlier occasion, either
            in the category of AOR or in the category of Advocate (Non-
            AOR) and have been subsequently designated as Senior
            Advocates, they shall be held to be eligible for allotment of chamber
            on those basis – 1:10 quota chambers for Senior Advocates and
D           shall be considered accordingly. Any allotment of chamber to
            them will have to be allotment from the quota of 1:10 in the Senior
            Advocates category, even when their eligibility for consideration
            for allotment of chambers had been achieved either as an AOR
            or as an advocate member of the SCBA in the non-AOR
E           category.”
             21. Insofar as challenge to Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules, namely,
      pre-condition of being a member of SCBA before consideration of
      allotment of chambers in any of the three categories is concerned, it is
      pleaded that the same be retained as, according to them, there is no
F     merit in the said contention.
             22. After hearing the counsel for the parties as well as
      Mr. 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.
G           23. This leaves us to decide the following issues:
            (a) Change of block period.
            (b) Validity of condition of membership of SCBA contained in
      Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules.
H
 GOPAL JHA v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                               537
                   [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

      (c) Validity of condition of resident of an advocate in Delhi/New        A
Delhi contained in Rule 3.
       24. Change of Block Period: We have already accepted the
suggestions 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 criteria
shall be counted from the last cut-off date in 2004 till September 30,         B
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     C
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        D
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           E
who may not be in active practice in recent past. Such a situation cannot
be countenanced. We, therefore, find 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     F
making application for the allotment. Therefore, starting of cut-off date
from the year 2004 is unacceptable.
        25. Since, sometime has elapsed when the block period was fixed
by the Judges’ Allotment Committee and we have extended the date for
making application, the only modification which can be done is to put the      G
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.


                                                                               H
538                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A           26. We are also not accepting the suggestion given in Para 5 of
      the Note that the allotment of chambers should be a continuous process.
      There has been a consistent practice in the past of inviting applications
      from time to time whenever lawyers’ chambers become available for
      allotment. It should be maintained as there is no reason to depart from
      the same. Otherwise, the purpose of fixing proximate block period shall
B
      also get defeated. At the same time, we also find that last such
      applications were invited in the year 2004 and considerable period has
      lapsed thereafter. Therefore, in order to ensure that such situation does
      not occur in future, we are of the opinion that Notice inviting such
      applications should be at least once in three years.
C            27. Validity of Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules: As per this rule, the
      membership of SCBA is essential to apply for allotment of chambers.
      Those petitioners who have challenged the validity of this rule submit
      that this eligibility criteria is discriminatory and violates the fundamental
      rights guaranteed to them under Articles 14, 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the
D     Constitution. Expanding this argument, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan,
      who appeared for writ petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 844 of 2018
      submitted that SCAORA is also a represented body like SCBA and,
      therefore, membership of anyone of these bodies should be enough for
      making a person eligible to be considered for allotment of chambers. It
      was argued that SCAORA was also a vibrant body which was formed
E     for the welfare of AOR. Therefore, the measure in the allotment of
      Lawyers’ Chambers Rules that restricts eligibility for allotment of
      chambers to members of the SCBA and excludes those who are
      members only of the SCAORA is manifestly arbitrary. Reliance is placed
      in this regard on the judgment of this Court in Shayara Bano v. Union
F     of India1, where it was held as follows:
                “87. The thread of reasonableness runs through the entire
                fundamental rights chapter. What is manifestly arbitrary is
                obviously unreasonable and being contrary to the rule of law, would
                violate Article 14. Further, there is an apparent contradiction in
G               the three-Judge Bench decision in McDowell [State of A.P. v.
                McDowell and Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709] when it is said that a
                constitutional challenge can succeed on the ground that a law is
                “disproportionate, excessive or unreasonable”, yet such challenge
                would fail on the very ground of the law being “unreasonable,
      1
          (2017) 9 SCC 1
H
    GOPAL JHA v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                            539
                      [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

         unnecessary or unwarranted”. The arbitrariness doctrine when          A
         applied to legislation obviously would not involve the latter
         challenge but would only involve a law being disproportionate,
         excessive or otherwise being manifestly unreasonable. All the
         aforesaid grounds, therefore, do not seek to differentiate between
         State action in its various forms, all of which are interdicted if
                                                                               B
         they fall foul of the fundamental rights guaranteed to persons and
         citizens in Part III of the Constitution.”
       28. According to the petitioners, this provision violates Article 14
as well as it created unreasonable classification. The consequences of
this unreasonable classification would be as follows:
                                                                               C
       (i) As a result of the judgment of this Court in Supreme Court
Bar Association & Ors. v. B.D. Kaushik2, only certain members of
the SCBA are permitted to vote in elections, as they are treated as
serious and regular practitioners in the Supreme Court. However, Rule
3 of the Allotment of Lawyers’ Chamber Rules makes no such distinction
and, therefore, those members of the SCBA who are ineligible to vote in        D
their own association are eligible to be allotted chambers of the Supreme
Court.
       (ii) If an SCBA member were to be expelled for any reason, for
example, if an SCBA member did not participate in the call for an illegal
strike by the SCBA on the grounds that it would be contrary to the             E
judgment of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Ex-Capt. Harish
Uppal v. Union of India & Anr.3, such a member would be ineligible to
apply for a chamber in the Supreme Court, whose very judgment he/she
has sought to adhere to.
        (iii) The petitioners have contended that the allocation of chambers   F
is a privilege afforded by the Supreme Court of India to those advocates
practicing before it. When both the SCBA and the SCAORA have
been recognised as advocates’ associations of equal importance, it would
be inappropriate to extend such a privilege only to the members of one
association and not the other.                                                 G
       29. It was also submitted that such a classification that excludes
the 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 774
3
    (2003) 2 SCC 45                                                            H
540            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A     unreasonable and has no rational nexus with the object sought to be
      achieved, i.e., the allotment of chambers to the regular practitioners of
      the Supreme Court. Mr. Sankaranarayanan went to the extent of
      contending that given the role of AOR in the administration of justice by
      the Supreme Court, it was more important in nature than even SCBA. It
      was 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 client
      in the Supreme Court;
            (iii) Adhere to strict stipulations regarding office location,
C     maintenance of accounts and filing of returns, unlike any other class of
      advocates.
            (iv) Are recognized as such by judgments of this Court from
      1964 onwards. This is even acknowledged by the Chamber Allotment
      Rules which earmarks nearly 70% of the chambers of the AOR.
D
              30. He further argued that the impugned Rule amounts to a
      compulsion for AOR to become a member of the SCBA, which would
      make an inroad into the rights under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution
      of India, of such advocates who are already members of SCAORA by
      compelling them unreasonably to become members of another Court-
E     affiliated organization.
             31. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel, who appeared in the
      capacity as President of SCBA as well as Mr. Maninder Singh, learned
      ASG defended Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules. It was submitted that
      SCBA is an umbrella association which represents the interests of all its
F     members. Membership of SCBA was open to all advocates, irrespective
      of their category, namely, senior advocates, advocates, AOR as well as
      other advocates. It was also argued that as a representative body for all
      the members, it is SCBA which has discussions with the CJI and/or
      Judges on various issues and problems which may occur from time to
      time, to find mutual acceptable solution to such problems and issues.
G
             32. It was further argued that this fact of SCBA, being an umbrella
      association, was even recognised by SCAORA itself which was reflected
      in the Rules and Regulations of SCAORA. Attention was drawn, in this


H
    GOPAL JHA v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                             541
                      [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

behalf, to Rule 4 of the said Rules and Regulations which deals with            A
admission and qualification for membership and prescribes that in order
to become a member of SCAORA, it is necessary to have the
membership of SCBA. Relevant portion of this Rule reads as under:
         “4. …
         A. An advocate may be considered for enrolment as Member of            B
         the Association if -
         (i) he is an Advocate-on-Record and Member of the Supreme
         Court Bar Association.
         (ii) he undertake to subscribe to the objects of the Association       C
         and abide by the rules and regulations framed by the Association
         from time to time; and
         (iii) he is considered suitable for Membership by the Executive
         Committee.”
       33. Based on the aforesaid provisions, they argued that AOR cannot       D
be a member of SCAORA unless he is a member of SCBA and, therefore,
entire issue raised by the petitioners was academic in nature, since the
contention of the petitioners proceeds on the basis that insofar as AOR
is concerned, membership of SCAORA should be sufficient.
      34. It was also submitted that nobody has any right to get allotment      E
of chamber, much less a fundamental right and, therefore, the petitioners
cannot invoke the provisions of Articles 14, 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution. Mr. Vikas Singh, in support, relied upon the judgment of
this Court in Vinay Balachandra Joshi v. Registrar General, Supreme
Court of India & Ors.4. It was a matter pertaining to allotment of
                                                                                F
chambers within the compound of the Supreme Court itself. One of the
contentions of the petitioners therein was that not making available
chambers to the AOR within the Supreme Court compound is violative
of fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and this
contention was rejected in the following manner:
         “4. We will first deal with the contention raised by the petitioners   G
         in Writ Petitions Nos. 883 and 1223 of 1990, that not making
         available chambers to the Advocates-on-Record within the


4
    (1998) 7 SCC 461                                                            H
542      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A     Supreme Court compound is violative of their fundamental right
      under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It was submitted that
      Article 19(1)(g) guarantees, inter alia, the right to practise any
      profession. Practising legal profession is thus a fundamental right.
      An Advocate-on-Record can exercise this fundamental right of
      his effectively only if he is provided with a chamber within the
B
      Supreme Court premises. Therefore, to make a chamber available
      to him is an integral part of his guaranteed fundamental right. We
      see no substance in this contention. Even if we proceed on the
      basis that to practise as an advocate is a fundamental right, no
      right to be allotted a chamber within the Court premises follows
C     from it. A legal practitioner/an advocate can carry on his legal
      profession without a chamber. It is not necessary that he should
      have a chamber within the Court premises. That which merely
      facilitates the exercise of the fundamental right cannot be regarded
      as an integral part of that fundamental right. Far from being a
      fundamental right it does not even have the status of a right. No
D
      law confers such a right on a member of a legal profession nor
      such a facility has been accepted as a right even otherwise. Making
      a chamber available to a member of the legal profession practising
      in 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 the
E     Advocates-on-Record, not giving a chamber to him cannot be
      regarded as violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. It
      may be stated that neither the learned Attorney General nor Mr
      Nariman, Mr Venugopal and other Senior Advocates supported
      this contention and very fairly stated that the view which we are
      taking namely that it is a facility provided by the Court is the
F
      correct view.
      5. As it is not a matter of right or legal obligation of the Court to
      provide the facility of a chamber to an advocate it would really be
      a matter of discretion of the Principal Judge of the Court to decide
      to whom and to what extent that facility should be extended when
G
      the same is available; and his only obligation would be to act in a
      fair and just manner and not arbitrarily. It may be proper for him
      to frame rules, appoint a committee and fix guidelines for the
      purpose of allotment of chambers; but the obligation is no higher
      than to act in a reasonable manner. It would be for him to decide
H
 GOPAL JHA v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                    543
                   [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

       when, to whom, to what extent and on what terms and conditions               A
       he should allot chambers.”

        35. Having regard to the existence of Rule 4 in the Rules and
Regulations of SCAORA itself, the entire edifice of the petitioners case
stands demolished. No doubt, SCAORA has its significant position in
this Court. However, we are concerned with the issue of allotment of                B
chambers. The petitioners have submitted that members of SCAORA
should be treated as sufficient eligibility for allotment of chambers. Yet,
in order to become a member of SCAORA, as per Rule 4 of the Rules
and Regulations of SCAORA itself, an advocate has to be the member
of SCBA. Therefore, unless an advocate is an AOR and also a member                  C
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.

       36. The respondents are also correct in their submission that there          D
is no fundamental right or any statutory right for allotment of chambers
in any court premises. This aspect has already been decided in Vinay
Balachandra Joshi, relevant discussion whereof has been reproduced
above. Further, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent
No. 1, significance of membership of SCBA is highlighted in order to
avail various facilities. It is, inter alia, stated that facilities like Library,   E
Parking, Canteen, Medical etc. become available only to the members
of the Bar Association of the concerned courts and such a stipulation is
prevalent in almost every court in the country. Counter affidavit goes on
to make the following averments:
                                                                                    F
       “6. It is respectfully submitted that there is no fundamental and/
       or any statutory right much less any indefeasible right of allotment
       of Chambers in any Court premises. It may, however, be submitted
       that each Court in the country always endeavours to extend (within
       its resources and availability of place etc.) maximum facilities to
       the Ld. Advocates for facilitating the process of administration of          G
       justice and for making it more efficient. It is also a fact, as observed
       in past so many decades, that the Ld. Advocates practicing at any
       Court - for a large number of reasons including for the better
       coordination with the Court authorities for achieving efficiency in
                                                                                    H
544            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A           the process of administration of justice, do form Bar Association
            not only for conducting and regulating the internal affairs of their
            Members but also for coordinating (as one unified class) with the
            Court authorities for achieving and securing betterment and
            improvement of the justice delivery system at any Court. It is a
            matter of common knowledge that such Bar Associations are in
B
            existence, from the inception of the modern Court system itself
            and are active in their own sphere. The Supreme Court also has
            in place, the Supreme Court Bar Association and which is taking
            care of the interest of its members and also coordinates with the
            authorities of the Supreme Court for welfare of its Members and
C           also for further improvements in the justice delivery system at the
            Supreme Court.
                       xx               xx                xx
            Without prejudice to the above, it is most respectfully reiterated
            that after securing enrolment as an Advocate under the Advocates
D
            Act, 1961 - the Ld. Advocates, for consideration for being extended
            certain facilities at the respective Court premises, are made obliged
            to also obtain membership with the local Bar Association, which
            also provides an additional forum/mechanism (besides and in
            addition to the Court authorities itself) to facilitate and regulate
E           the conduct/affairs of the Ld. Advocates practicing before any
            Court of law. It is most humbly submitted that contentions to the
            contrary raised in the present Writ Petition seeking to question
            the correctness and validity of the above-mentioned Rule obliging
            the Ld. Advocates to secure the Membership of SCBA for
            consideration for extending the facility of allotment of Chamber is
F
            entirely valid and legal.”
            37. We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the
      requirement of being a member of SCBA for submitting application for
      allotment of chambers.
G            38. Alternative submission of the petitioners is that if the rule is
      upheld, an opportunity should be given to those members of SCAORA,
      who have not become the members of SCBA so far, to apply and become
      the member of SCBA even now and on that condition, their applications
      for allotment of chambers be entertained. Insofar as this submission is

H
 GOPAL JHA v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                               545
                   [A. K. SIKRI, J.]

concerned, once the petitioners or other similarly situated persons become     A
members of SCBA, they can make such a request to the Chambers
Committee while making their applications for allotment of chambers
and it will be for the Chambers Committee to take a view thereupon.
       39. Prescription of the requirement of resident in Delhi or New
Delhi in Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules: In one of the petitions, this          B
provision is challenged. It is submitted that there is no rationale in
prescribing the condition that an advocate to become eligible for allotment
of chamber should be a resident in Delhi or New Delhi. Argument was
that in last few years, there was exponential growth in the population of
Delhi which, inter alia, necessitated people to shift in areas nearby, like
Noida or Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh, Faridabad or Gurugram in Haryana.         C
It was submitted that the only purpose for making the aforesaid provision
was that the advocate who is practicing in Supreme Court is readily
available and, therefore, he is living in the vicinity of the Supreme Court.
It was submitted that some of the areas which are mentioned above are
closer to the Supreme Court than many areas in Delhi itself. Therefore,        D
such a provision has lost its rationality and purpose. The petitioners in
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1063 of 2018 submits that insofar as he is
concerned, if an aerial distance is taken, his residence falls within 16km
radius as he is residing in Indirapuram, Ghaziabad (U.P.). Plea is that if
the definition of resident member is seen, as defined in Rule 3(ix), it
means a member residing and practicing as an advocate in Delhi or its          E
suburbs and “suburbs” clearly includes NCR also. Therefore, all those
who are staying in NCR should be made eligible for allotment of
chambers.
       40. We are of the opinion that having regard to the changed
circumstances and the manner in which areas around Delhi have                  F
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
                                                                               G
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, we are of the opinion that this issue

                                                                               H
546             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 13 S.C.R.


A     can be considered by the Judges’ Allotment Committee. We make it
      clear that it is for the Committee to take a final view on this issue, after
      taking into consideration all the relevant factors.
             41. All these writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

B
      Divya Pandey                                          Writ Petitions disposed of.




C




D




E




F




G




H