The Delhi High Court has raised serious concerns over the hereditary allotment of lawyers’ chambers, questioning if preferential treatment violates Article 14. The court highlights blatant discrimination affecting first-generation and early-career lawyers in Delhi.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has taken a crucial step in addressing alleged discrimination in the allotment of lawyers’ chambers. In a recent hearing, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela issued notices to the Bar Council of India (BCI), the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), the Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA), and the Delhi High Court itself.
The notices were issued in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the First Generation Lawyers Association (FGLA), which challenges the hereditary allotment of chambers under the Delhi High Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, 1980.
The PIL specifically targets Rule 5A of the 1980 Rules, which grants automatic and preferential allotment of chambers to the spouses, sons, and daughters of existing allottees upon their death or retirement. The FGLA claims this practice discriminates against early-career and first-generation lawyers who face difficulties securing functional workspaces essential for drafting, client meetings, and case preparation.
During the hearing, the Court remarked:
“How do you justify such rules? Can this be a reasonable ground to allow someone to jump the queue? The discrimination is writ large. Can this be a ground? Can it be sustained on Article 14?”
The Bench suggested that such hereditary allotments may violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law.
The PIL also highlights instances of chambers lying unused for years. Many allottees reportedly live outside Delhi, rarely appear in court, or hold multiple chambers across different courts, including District Courts, the Delhi High Court, and the Supreme Court. The petitioner argues that this results in inefficient use of valuable public space and creates an unfair disadvantage for younger lawyers who remain on long waiting lists.
“Certain families continue to enjoy chamber benefits for generations, even as more deserving lawyers remain indefinitely on waiting lists with no transparency regarding their status,”
the PIL stated.
ALSO READ: Can Lawyers Run Chambers from Home Basements?: Delhi HC Says Yes Without NDMC Permission
The FGLA has urged the Delhi High Court to:
- Strike down Rule 5A of the 1980 Rules
- Review all existing chamber allotments and cancel those that are unused
- Constitute an independent committee to ensure a fair, transparent, and need-based distribution of chambers
The plea cites violations of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, arguing that first-generation lawyers are being deprived of essential workspaces critical for practicing law.
Case Title:
First Generation Lawyers Association (FGLA) v Bar Council of India & Ors
