The Delhi High Court held that an advocate has no vested right to retain a chamber allotted during association with another lawyer. Upholding CAC’s decision, it ruled the petitioner was only a permissive user without entitlement in absence of governing rules.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court agreed with the Chamber Allotment Committee (CAC) that, absent any policy, rule or regulation, an advocate has no vested right to continue using a chamber that had been allotted to them when they served as an associate. The court heard a petition by a lawyer challenging the CAC’s decision.
Single Judge Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed,
“It appears from the record that the petitioner was allowed to use the aforesaid Chamber as an associate of Mr. Rajesh Nayan. The CAC, therefore, rightly concluded that the petitioner was merely a permissive user of the Chamber. The Court further concurs with the view taken by the CAC that in the absence of there being any policy/rule/regulation entitling the petitioner, there is no vested right in favour of the petitioner to use the Chamber. The Court is unable to interfere with the decision taken by the CAC.”
ALSO READ: Choked Corridors of Justice: Delhi’s Lower Courts Face a Massive Lawyer-Chamber Crisis
Advocate Nitesh Mehra appeared for the petitioner. Addressing the claim that the petitioner had paid sums to the original allottees, the Bench said the petitioner may pursue appropriate remedies to recover those amounts and/or seek damages.
The petition was disposed of with the additional direction that,
“…if the CAC finds that the original allottees of Chamber No. 570 have violated any of the applicable terms and conditions, then the necessary consequences shall follow.”
Case Title: Anju Tanwar v. Lawyers Chambers Allotment Committee (W.P.(C) 4237/2026).
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES