The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea on lawyers’ chamber allotment, holding residency eligibility can be reviewed by district court portfolio committees. Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed Karkardooma, Dwarka, and Rohini committees to decide.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition concerning the allotment of lawyers’ chambers in select district courts, finding that the eligibility rules restricting chamber allotment to advocates who are permanent residents of the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi could be examined by the relevant district court portfolio committees.
The Division Bench of Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed the committees overseeing Karkardooma, Dwarka, and Rohini district courts to resolve the issue.
The Court directed,
“This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the eligibility conditions put in the rules of allotment of chambers in respect of Karkardooma, Dwarka and Rohini Courts on the ground that the rules therein stipulate that a member of the association must necessarily be a resident of NCT of Delhi to be eligible for allotment of chamber. Let the issue raised be decided by the respective district courts and a decision thereof be taken,”
The order followed submissions from Advocate Sameer Vashisht, who appears for the chamber allotment committees, indicating that the matter could be settled by the district courts’ portfolio committees. The petitioner also welcomed this suggestion.
Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition and entrusted the issue to the relevant committees for decision.
Advocate Piyush Gupta had filed the public interest litigation (PIL) before the Court, challenging the residence-based criterion for chamber allotment at the Karkardooma, Rohini, and Dwarka district courts. The prevailing rules require that only Delhi permanent residents be eligible for chamber allotment.
Gupta contended that these rules diverge from the Delhi High Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, 1980, and invoked the High Court’s 2010 PK Dash & Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. decision to advocate for uniform, transparent, and non-arbitrary chamber distribution.
It was argued that after the PK Dash judgment, the territorial eligibility for chamber allotment under the High Court’s rules was broadened in 2017, but no corresponding changes were made in the district court rules governing the Karkardooma, Dwarka, and Rohini complexes.
Gupta asserted that while the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court have accepted a broader NCR-based territorial framework, the persistence of NCR-centric conditions at the district courts results in unequal treatment among similarly placed advocates. He urged measures to align district court chamber eligibility with the High Court’s expanded framework.
In the most recent hearing, the Court had suggested that other advocates with similar grievances could join the PIL. Gupta’s counsel, Advocate Malhotra, stated that he would consult such advocates and seek more time to do so.
Advocate Malhotra informed the Court that he had conversations with several aggrieved advocates and requested additional time to consult all those affected. Nevertheless, the Court resolved to terminate the PIL, noting that those aggrieved may pursue their individual remedies.
The Court remarked,
“We will dispose it off for this case. Individual remedies are available to them. We take on record that the nine advocates whose request for allotment has been rejected under Rule 3, shall seek their remedies as available under law against those rejections,”
Case Title: Piyush Gupta Advocate Vs The Chamber Allotment Committee & Ors.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES