GOPAL JHA versus THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 517, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
517
GOPAL JHA
v.
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 745 of 2018)
OCTOBER 25, 2018
[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,
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
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
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
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
member of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for
submitting application for allotment of chambers – Constitution of
India – Art. 14.
[2018] 13 S.C.R. 517
517
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
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
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
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 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
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
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
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]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
519
1.2  Applications for allotment of chambers were last invited
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
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
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
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
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
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
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]
GOPAL JHA  v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
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,
Supreme Court of India & Ors. (1998) 7 SCC 461
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2017] 7 SCR 797
     referred to           Para 27
[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
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION :  Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 745 of 2018
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
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
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.,
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.
M. R. Shamshad, Petitioner-in-person
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
521
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
 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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
GOPAL JHA  v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
522
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
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;
(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.
       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
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
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
(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
(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
of India; or
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
523
(g) On the death of an allottee; or
(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
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
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.”
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
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
updating the existing Panels for allotment of Lawyers Chambers:
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) 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).
GOPAL JHA  v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
524
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
(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
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
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.
(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,
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
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,
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
525
General, Supreme Court of India, requesting for change of criteria for
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
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
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).
(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
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
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.
(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).
GOPAL JHA  v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
(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).
(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
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).
(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.
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:
“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
*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
or for any two non-consecutive years between 01.06.2011 and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
527
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.  (Registrar’s Court Appearance shall not be
taken into consideration).
(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
respondents) on an average 20 cases per annum (i.e. admission/
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
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
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.
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
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
GOPAL JHA  v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
528
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
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.
(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
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
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/
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
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-
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.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
529
 11. Some of the petitioners herein also made representations to
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:
Sl. No.
Cause Title
Relief  Sought
1 
Gopal Jha, WP(C) No. 
745/2018 
Change 
of 
block 
period 
from 
01.06.2011-30.06.2016 to 01.01.2005 
to 17.10.2017/ 16.05.2018. 
2 
Anirudh 
Sanganeria, 
WP(C) No. 772/2018 
Calendar year to be taken as January-
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) 
No. 854/2018 
Change 
of 
block 
period 
from 
01.06.2011-30.06.2016 to 01.01.2005 
to 31.12.2017. 
4 
V. 
Shyam 
Mohan, 
WP(C) No. 844/2018 
Challenged Clause 3 of the Lawyers 
Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) 
Rules as it violates of Article 14, 
19(1)(c) and Article 19(1)(g) as it 
mandates that applicant should be a 
member of SCBA.
5 
Sahdev Singh, WP(C) 
No. 941 of 2018 
Take into consideration period from 
01.01.2004 – 31.05.2011 in the Block 
Period. 
6 
Shirin Khajuria, WP(C) 
No. 917/2018 
(i) AOR should be permitted to apply 
in the category of Non-AOR. 
(ii) Third category to be renamed as 
Advocate. 
7
V. Mohana, WP(C) No. 
997/2018 
Extend
cut-off date from 31.06.2016 
and in the alternative quash notice 
dated 16.05.2018, on the ground that 
Clause 3B is violative of Article 14 and 
19. 
8 
R.K. Singh, WP(C) No. 
975/2018 
Block date to be taken as 01.01.2004 – 
31.12.2017
GOPAL JHA  v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
  ___________________________ _______________________
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
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.
(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
9 
Jaikriti 
S. Jadeja & 
Ors., 
WP(C) No. 947/2018 
Cut-off period be extended till 
31.12.2017.  
10
M.R. Shamshad, WP(C) No. 
998/2018 
Quashing of Condition 2(a) of 
revised 
notice 
inviting 
applications for allotment of 
Lawyers 
Chambers 
dated 
16.05.2018. 
11
Vikram Gulati, WP(C) No. 
1063/2018  
(i) Change of block period 
from 01.06.2011-30.06.2016 to 
01.01.2004 to 31.12.2017. 
(ii) 
To 
not 
insist on the 
condition of his name being on 
voters list of SCBA and to 
include NCR
to the place of 
residence. 
(iii)  Calendar year to be from 
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) 
No. 1058/2018 
Cut-off period be extended till 
30.08.2018.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
531
association of AOR as well, known as SCAORA and it should be
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
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.
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
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/
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:
“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.”
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
GOPAL JHA  v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
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
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,
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
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,
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
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
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
five years.”
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
533
“...that such petitions which are disposed of with diary number by
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
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
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:-
‘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.
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
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
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.
GOPAL JHA  v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
534
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
535
4. This cut-off date of 30.9.2018 shall be subject to any modification
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
GOPAL JHA  v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
536
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
537
(c)  Validity of condition of resident of an advocate in Delhi/New
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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.
GOPAL JHA  v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
539
unnecessary or unwarranted”. The arbitrariness doctrine when
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
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:
(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
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
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
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.
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
GOPAL JHA  v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
2 (2011) 13 SCC 774
3 (2003) 2 SCC 45
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
540
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
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:
(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,
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.
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-
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
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.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
541
behalf, to Rule 4 of the said Rules and Regulations which deals with
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
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
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
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
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
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
in Writ Petitions Nos. 883 and 1223 of 1990, that not making
available chambers to the Advocates-on-Record within the
GOPAL JHA  v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
4(1998) 7  SCC 461
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
542
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
543
when, to whom, to what extent and on what terms and conditions
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
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
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
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,
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:
“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
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
GOPAL JHA  v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
544
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
545
concerned, once the petitioners or other similarly situated persons become
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
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
GOPAL JHA  v. THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
[A. K. SIKRI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13 S.C.R.
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.
Divya Pandey
                               Writ Petitions disposed of.