Supreme Court Refuses To Defer Chamber Allotments, Asks Lawyers To Raise Grievance About Twin-Sharing Condition Before Committee

The Supreme Court, on Monday, asked the members of the Bar to make representation to the three-member Committee constituted to oversee the allotment of lawyers' chambers at the Supreme Court premises, with their grievance regarding the allotment on twin-sharing basis entailing division of chambers.The Court also turned down the prayer made by the petitioners to defer the allotment till the Committee takes a decision on the representation. "Ld. Sr Counsel for the petition states that at this stage they would prefer to make representation before the Committee to oversee allotment of chambers. He states that genuine apprehension of the petition will be placed before the Committee in the spirit of dialogue with the Committee. We will take it after 2 weeks", the Court dictated the order.After much deliberation, keeping the petition pending before the Court, a Bench of Justices D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna asked the aggrieved members of the Bar to make a presentation to the concerned committee comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant and JK Maheswari. Senior Advocate, Mr. PS Patwalia, appearing for the petitioner lawyers, apprised the Bench that the erstwhile committee had, on 03.03.2022, decided to make single allotment of chambers. But the present committee has now issued notice to allot a chamber after dividing the same into two parts. The concern of the Senior Advocate is that the division of the 9 by 16 rooms might be improbable and would not benefit the allottees. He submitted - "In 2019, a decision was taken that the chambers would be allotted on double allotment. We filed a WP saying that this is a 9 by 16 chamber. This cannot be divided. It would be impossible. Then a three-member committee was formed. It decided that allotment would be single. Bar asked for more chambers. After seeking the chambers it decided on 03.03.2022 to make it single allotment…Today there is a new committee…Then the notice of double allotment is issued. Allow us a meeting with the committee."Mr. Patwalia brought it to the notice of the Bench that unlike the erstwhile committee, the present one has not physically visited the chambers. Justice Chandrachud noted that this apprehension of the Senior Counsel might not be correct. In this regard, he stated - "Your contention that the committee did not visit the chambers might not be correct. When we decided to open up the auditorium for the bar. We all took a round of the chambers."He added - "What we would suggest is that have a word with the committee."Mr. Patwalia asserted, "The petitioners herein have been waiting since 2004."Justice Chandrachud retorted, that as per his knowledge lawyers have been waiting since 1975. In this backdrop, he reckoned urging for single allotment would drive out half the lawyers being allotted chambers under the impugned notice. "There is no substance in what you say. The moment you say single allotment, half the number of the lawyers will get allotment and the half goes out."Recalling the chamber Justice Chandrachud was allotted in Bombay as the Additional Solicitor General, he remarked - "…As Additional Solicitor General I had a chamber of 120 sq ft. Because it was Bombay. Even in Delhi space is such a constraint."Mr. Patwalia emphasised - "It is better to give a facility to one rather than breaking it (chambers) into pieces and not benefiting anyone."The Senior Counsel beseeched the Bench to defer the allotment of chambers till the representations are decided. The Bench refused to grant the same. But, Justice Chandrachud observed that the Committee would consider the grievance in the correct perspective - "All the members of the committee have been members of the Bar."As the Counsels urged further, Justice Chandrachud added "...the committee is a part of the same Court."Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade, representing some allottees who are opposing the petition, submitted that the issue ought to be raised before the administrative side of the Supreme Court rather than in a petition before the judicial side.Last week, when the petition was mentioned for urgent hearing, the Chief Justice of India had orally remarked that lawyers should not expect "palatial chambers" and that they should consider themselves fortunate that they are allotted space in Delhi."I'm not talking as CJI. I am talking in the welfare of lawyers. With great difficulty something has happened.Don't expect palatial chambers. Getting a place to sit itself is a big favour. Nowhere in the country except Delhi you get chambers. We used to stand under the tree. You are fortunate. You got chambers", the CJI said,The CJI said that three judges of the allotment committee spent a lot of time in finalising the list of allottees. The chamber allotment is done as per Supreme Court Lawyers Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules.Case Title : Ambhoj Kumar Sinha and others vs Supreme Court of India and others| WP(c)...

Supreme Court Refuses To Defer Chamber Allotments, Asks Lawyers To Raise Grievance About Twin-Sharing Condition Before Committee

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sohini Chowdhury

Supreme Court Refuses To Defer Chamber Allotments, Asks Lawyers To Raise Grievance About Twin-Sharing Condition Before Committee

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sohini Chowdhury

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers