SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATIONversusMINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ORS.

                        [2023] 5 S.C.R. 453                            453


             SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION                             A
                                 v.
       MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ORS.
                 (Writ Petition (C) No. 640 of 2022)
                         MARCH 23, 2023                                B

        [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
               SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND
         PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
       Constitution of India – Art. 32 – Supreme Court Bar             C
Association sought writ of mandamus directing Union Ministry of
Urban Development to (i) grant permission for the conversion into
a chamber block for lawyers of an entire tract of land admeasuring
1.33 acres situated near the ITO, which has been allotted to the
Supreme Court; (ii) convert the entire area around the Supreme Court
as ‘a Supreme Court Complex’ , so that all the buildings can be        D
utilized for conversion into chambers or for being redeveloped as
a chamber block / for activities of the Supreme Court or for any
other amenities for lawyers; and (iii) allot a government bungalow
which is presently being occupied by the Foreign Correspondents’
Club to the petitioner – Held: Such directions cannot be issued on     E
the judicial side – The Supreme Court of India on its administrative
side to take appropriate decisions bearing in mind the needs of the
institution for the present and the future and the interest of all
stakeholders – The process of decision making would also involve
consultation with the Bar – SCAORA, SCBA and BCI would be at
                                                                       F
liberty to address the issue with their representations on the
administrative side – Writ petitions disposed of.
      CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) No. 640
of 2022.
      (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)                  G
      With
      Writ Petition (C) No. 817 of 2022.
      Vikas Singh, Pradeep Kumar Rai, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Ms.
Sonia Mathur, Brijender Chahar, Dinesh Kumar Goswami, Vikas Pahwa,     H
                                453
454                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A     Ranji Thomas, Sr. Advs., Rohit Pandey, Mrs. Yugandhara Pawar Jha,
      Reepak Kansal, Ms. Seema Patnaha, Kumar Gaurav, Mukesh Kumar
      Singh, Vikas Gupta, Ms. Anjali Chauhan, Upendra Mishra, Ms. Nandini
      Gupta, Satbir Singh Pillania, Ms. Sangeeta Singh, Pravir Choudhary, Advs.
      for the Petitioner.
B           R. Venkataramani, AG, K.M Nataraj, Ms. Madhavi Divan, A.S.Gs.,
      Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Manan Kumar Mishra, S Prabhakaran, Apurba
      Sharma, Sr. Advs., Mrs. Jyoti Zongluju, Kanu Agrawal, Mrs. Deepabali
      Dutta, Vinayak Sharma, Amrish Kumar, Ms. Nidhi Khanna, Devvrat,
      Manoj K. Mishra, Snehasish Mukherjee, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Puneet
      Singh Bindra, Sachin Sharma, Abhinav Ramkrishna, Vishal Prasad, Ms.
C     Meenakshi Chauhan, Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, Aakarshan Aditya, Ms.
      Anzu K Varkey, Ms. Radhika Gautam, Ms. Anjul Diwedi, Vishwajeet
      Mishra, Sai Girdhar Diwedi, Ramshankar, Advs. for the Respondents.
              Applicant-in-person
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
              DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
             1. The Supreme Court Bar Association1 has invoked the jurisdiction
      of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a writ of
      mandamus directing the Union Ministry of Urban Development to
E             (i)      grant permission for the conversion into a chamber block
                       for lawyers of an entire tract of land admeasuring 1.33 acres
                       situated near the ITO, which has been allotted to the
                       Supreme Court;
              (ii)     convert the entire area around the Supreme Court as ‘a
F                      Supreme Court Complex’ so that all the buildings across
                       the Supreme Court on Bhagwan Das Road including the
                       Foreign Correspondents’ Club of South Asia, Indian Law
                       Institute and Indian Society of International Law can be
                       utilized for conversion into chambers or for being
                       redeveloped as a chamber block / for activities of the
G                      Supreme Court or for any other amenities for lawyers; and
              (iii)    allot a government bungalow which is presently being
                       occupied by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club to the
                       petitioner.
      1
H         “SCBA”
   SCBA v. MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ORS.                               455
       [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

       2. According to the petitioner, the number of advocates practicing     A
before the Supreme Court has increased manifold in recent years and
the existing chamber blocks are insufficient to accommodate the growing
needs of lawyers eligible for allotment. According to the petitioner, an
area admeasuring 12.19 acres in the erstwhile Appu Ghar Complex was
allotted to the Supreme Court by the Ministry of Urban Development of
                                                                              B
which a small portion has been utilized for the construction of a new
chamber block for advocates practicing before the Supreme Court. In
the new chamber block for lawyers, 234 chambers have been constructed
which are now allotted on a dual occupancy to accommodate 468
lawyers.
       3. The petitioner asserts that out of a total area of 1.33 acres       C
allotted to the Supreme Court by the Union Government near ITO for
the construction of an archival block, only 0.50 acres has been earmarked
for a chamber block for lawyers. According to the petitioner, only four
to five hundred chambers can be constructed in the said area. Since the
land admeasuring 1.33 acres is ‘the last piece of vacant land available       D
near the Supreme Court’, the petitioner submits that it should be entirely
utilized for constructing chamber blocks for lawyers.
        4. According to the petitioner, the archives of the Supreme Court
can be housed in the Additional Building Complex where some areas
are lying vacant. The petitioner submits that they have an equal right to     E
utilize vacant spaces in lands allotted to the Supreme Court as its members
are an integral part of the justice delivery system.
       5. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr Vikas Singh, learned
senior counsel submitted that:
      (i)     The allotment of 12.19 acres in the erstwhile Appu Ghar         F
              Complex by the Ministry of Urban Development to the
              Supreme Court was expedited by the institution of a petition
              on the judicial side by the SCBA;
      (ii)    After the Additional Building Complex was constructed in
              2018-19, a small segment has been utilized for the              G
              construction of a chamber block for lawyers in which 234
              chambers have been constructed allowing for an occupancy
              of 468 lawyers;
      (iii)   The Additional Registrar of the Supreme Court informed
              the SCBA that 0.50 acres out of 1.33 acres of land have         H
456             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A                    been earmarked for construction of a lawyers’ chamber
                     block, subject to a change of use. Since only four to five
                     hundred chambers can be constructed on the land which
                     has been earmarked, the entirety should be utilized for the
                     construction of chambers for lawyers who are an integral
                     part of the justice delivery system; and
B
             (iv)    A petition under Article 32 is maintainable because a change
                     of land use requires judicial intervention and also bearing in
                     mind the precedent of this Court’s intervention on the issue
                     of the electoral college for the SCBA.
C            6. Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing on
      behalf of the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association 2 submits
      that the members of the Association are required by the Rules governing
      their practice as Advocates on Record to maintain an office within a
      stipulated radius of the Supreme Court. Learned senior counsel submitted
      that in the newly constructed chamber block in the Additional Building
D     Complex, approximately 70 percent of the chambers have been allotted
      to Advocates on Record (the remaining 10 percent being allotted to Senior
      Advocates and 20 percent to other Advocates). While emphasizing the
      needs of the Advocates on Record, Ms Arora submitted that this is a
      matter which SCAORA is agreeable to being taken up on the
E     administrative side with the Supreme Court. Learned senior counsel
      further submitted that at that stage, it would be desirable if an opportunity
      is granted to SCAORA to deliberate on the issue with the Building
      Committee of the Supreme Court.
            7. Mr Manan Kumar Mishra, Mr S Prabhakaran, and Mr Debi
F     Prasad Dhal, all learned senior counsel, appeared on behalf of the Bar
      Council of India.
              8. Mr Manan Kumar Mishra who is also the Chairperson of the
      Bar Council of India urged that (i) the Bar Council of India is a statutory
      body entrusted with duties and functions to regulate the legal profession;
G     (ii) though the Bar Council has a building of its own, situated in proximity
      to the Supreme Court, it is inadequate to meet its needs; (iii) the Bar
      Council of India has to carry out disciplinary functions and all its records
      are lodged in a godown; (iv) hence the space should be allotted to the
      Bar Council of India for the construction of a building complex which

H     2
          “SCAORA”
   SCBA v. MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ORS.                                457
       [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

would facilitate the discharge of its statutory functions under the            A
Advocates Act 1961. Mr Manan Kumar Mishra, Mr S Prabhakaran and
Mr Debi Prasad Dhal, learned senior counselhave, however, joined in
stating that this is a matter which should be taken up only on the
administrative side and the Bar Council would be content with such
decision as may be taken by the Supreme Court to accommodate its
                                                                               B
reasonable needs.
       9. Mr R Venkataramani, learned Attorney General appeared on
behalf of the Union Government. The Attorney General has submitted
that the issue should be taken up on the administrative side by the Supreme
Court and that in his own capacity, he will facilitate an attempt to secure
the needs of the institution and of its stakeholders.                          C

       10. Mr Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the SCBA has questioned the locus of the Bar Council of India in
these proceedings, stating that SCBA is the recognized association
representing lawyers practicing before the Supreme Court. Hence,
according to him, the Bar Council, which has a building of its own, has        D
no locus standi to make any submissions for asserting its own demands
in the land which has been allotted to the Supreme Court.
        11. On 12 September 2022, this Court issued notice with respect
to the relief sought in prayer (a) of the petition seeking the conversion of
the land admeasuring 1.33 acres for a chamber block for lawyers.               E

       12. The written submission which has been filed in these
proceedings by the Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India
sets 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 Housing       F
and Urban Affairs conveyed the sanction of the President of India for
the allotment of the land for the specific purpose of setting up of the
Supreme Court Archives. On 27 August 2018, the Additional Registrar
of the Supreme Court informed the SCBA of the decision to earmark
0.50 acres out of the land for the purpose of constructing lawyers’            G
chambers. By a notification dated 1 February 2019, the Union Ministry
of Housing and Urban Affairs modified the Master Plan of Delhi - 2021
in exercise of powers under Section 11A(2) of the Delhi Development
Act 1957 by which the land use of the land located in Planning Zone-3
was changed to ‘Government Office’.
                                                                               H
458             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A            13. The Secretary General also submitted that the decision to use
      the land for the Supreme Court Archives as well as the decision to allocate
      0.5 acres of the land for construction of lawyers’ chambers is in
      accordance with the direction of the then Chief Justice of India and the
      matter regarding the development of the land is pending consideration
      before the Judges Committee. The Secretary General has submitted
B
      that the suggestion of the petitioner that the Supreme Court Archives be
      re-shifted to Blocks ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the Additional Building Complex or
      the Annexe Building cannot be accepted as the space available in those
      locations is inadequate. It has been submitted that the decision to earmark
      0.5 acres for the construction of lawyers’ chambers was taken after
C     careful deliberation bearing in mind that a chamber block has also been
      recently constructed in the Additional Building Complex for members of
      the Bar.
              14. During the course of the deliberations at the oral hearing, the
      Bench has indicated that it is fully cognizant of the needs of the lawyers
D     appearing before the Supreme Court who are vital stakeholders in the
      administration of justice. Moreover, it was also noted during the course
      of the dialogue that the litigants are stakeholders as well and while creating
      or upgrading the existing amenities, the interest and welfare of litigants
      has to be duly recognized and protected.
E            15. The narration of submissions would indicate that while Mr
      Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the SCBA
      has sought a resolution of the demand raised in the petition on the judicial
      side, SCAORA and the Bar Council of India, on the other hand, indicated
      that they would wish to have the issue addressed on the administrative
F     side so that an appropriate view can be taken by this Court
      administratively after deliberation with their representatives.
              16. There is no gainsaying in the fact that the members of the
      Bar, together with the litigants, have an important role in the functioning
      of the judicial institution of the Supreme Court. During the course of the
G     hearing, we have abundantly indicated to the learned senior counsel that
      the views of the Bar would be solicited and deliberations will take place
      on the administrative side with the members of the Associations and the
      Bar Council.
           17. The learned Attorney General for India has, in the same
H     manner, as SCAORA and the Bar Council of India, indicated that the
   SCBA v. MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT & ORS.                                459
       [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

issue needs to be taken up on the administrative side and not on the           A
judicial side.
       18. We are categorically of the view that it would not be appropriate
to entertain a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a
direction that the entirety of the land admeasuring 1.33 acres should be
allotted for the construction of a chamber block for lawyers.                  B
       19. On 27 August 2018, the Additional Registrar of the Supreme
Court of India addressed a communication to the Honorary Secretary of
the SCBA stating that 0.50 acres out of 1.33 acres of land shall be
earmarked for the construction of lawyers’ chambers subject to a change
of land use by the concerned authority. Mr Vikas Singh, learned senior         C
counsel appearing for the SCBA urged that a direction for the change of
land use has to be adjudicated only on the judicial side. However, this
may not be a correct perception. Issues pertaining to the change of land
use, as indicated in the letter dated 27 August 2018, are eminently suitable
for being addressed on the administrative side.
                                                                               D
       20. SCBA cannot assert a right to the entirety of the land
admeasuring 1.33 acres, which has been allotted by the Union government
for housing the Supreme Court Archives, for converting it into a chamber
block for lawyers. The Supreme Court of India discharges both judicial
and administrative functions. The discharge of its functions implicates
diverse stakeholders including lawyers, litigants and the staff engaged in     E
activities of the Supreme Court. A holistic view has to be taken on the
allocation of available resources by balancing the needs of stakeholders
both for the present and the future. These are matters which cannot be
resolved by the application of judicial standards and have to be taken up
on the administrative side of the Supreme Court. Administrative                F
functioning and decision-making, which the current issue requires, cannot
be moved to the judicial side.
       21. Apart from prayer ‘a’ which seeks the conversion of the
entirety of the land admeasuring 1.33 acres to a chamber block for
lawyers, the petitioners have also sought the conversion of the entire         G
area around Supreme Court as a Supreme Court Block so that all buildings
across the Supreme Court on Bhagwan Das Road can be utilized for
conversion to lawyers’ chambers. The petitioner has also sought the
allotment of a government bungalow presently occupied by the Foreign
Correspondents’ Club to the petitioner. Such directions cannot be issued
on the judicial side.                                                          H
460              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 5 S.C.R.


A            22. We therefore are unable to subscribe to the reliefs which
      have been sought in the petition under Article 32. However, we leave it
      open to the Supreme Court of India on its administrative side to take
      appropriate decisions bearing in mind the needs of the institution for the
      present and the future and the interest of all stakeholders. The process
      of decision making would also involve consultation with the Bar.
B
      SCAORA, SCBA and BCI would be at liberty to address the issue with
      their representations on the administrative side. The writ petitions shall
      accordingly stand disposed of in the above terms.

      Ankit Gyan                                         Writ petitions disposed of.
C     (Assisted by : Dayaar, LCRA)




D




E




F




G




H