http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: VINAY BALALCHANDRA JOSHI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: REGISTRAR GENERAL SUPREME COURT TO INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/09/1998

BENCH: S.C. AGRAWAL, G.T. NANAVATI, S. SAGHIR AHMAD

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: (With W.P. @ Nos. 1107/90, 1223/90, 628/90, 763/91, 84/94, 51/98 and 307/98 and I.A..../98 in W.P @ No. 1107/90 and I.A. No..../98 in W.P. @ No.883/90)                       J U D G M E N T NANAVATI, J.      All  these   petitions  under   Article   32   of   the Constitution and  applications  made  therein  were  finally heard on  16.5.1998 and disposed of by passing the following order:      "I.A...../98 in  WP@  No.883/90  Upon  being  mentioned taken on  Board. The  applicant in  this I.A. is an advocate and is  a member  of the Supreme Court Bar Association since 1971 but  he is not actively practicing is this Court. He is the Chief  Editor of  the  Supreme  Court  Cases.    he  has submitted that  in view of the fact that in that capacity he has been  closely associated  with the work and needs of the Supreme Court  and the Bar in the matter of reporting of the decisions of  this Court,  facility  of  a  chamber  may  be extended to  him in  order to  enable him  to discharge  his functions more  effectively. In  our pinion, it will be more appropriate for  the applicant  to submit  a  representation before Hon’ble  the Chief  Justice of  India setting out the special  facts  and  circumstances  of  his  case  and  seek exemption  from   the  provisions  contained  in  the  rules providing for  allotment since  the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India  alone  is  competent  to  make  such  exemption.  The application is disposed of accordingly.      WP@ No.  628/90 The grievance of the petitioner in this writ   petition   was   regarding   consideration   of   the representation of  the petitioner  under the Allotment Rules for the purpose of allotment of chamber to him. It is stated that during  the pendency  of the  writ  petition  the  said grievance of the petitioner has been removed and he has been allotted half portion of the chamber.  In the circumstances, this  writ   petition  has  become  infructuous  and  it  is dismissed as such.      IN  REMAINING  MATTER.  Arguments  concluded.  Detailed reasons will  follow. We  have heard  the  learned  Attorney General    for    India/learned    ASG,    learned    senior counsel/counsel  for  the  parties  in  these  matters.  For

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

reasons to  be given later, we are of the view that there is no infirmity  in the  roster system adopted under the letter dated  August   29,  1995   for  allotment  of  chambers  to advocates-on-record, junior  non-advocates on record and the senior advocates  in the ratio of 7:2:1. The said system for allotment is  therefore, upheld.  If any of the associations of  advocates   or  and  advocate  has  any  suggestion  for modification of  the said  principle the  same may be placed before Hon’ble  the Chief Justice of India who many consider the same.  But till  any modification  is made  the existing principle will  govern the  allotment of chambers. If any of the  petitioners   in  these   matters  has  any  individual grievance in  the matter  of allotment  of a chamber, he can submit a representation to the Allotment Committee which may consider the same on merits. The writ petitions are disposed of  accordingly.  Interim  order  shall  stand  vacated.  No costs."      We could  not state  the reasons then for want of time. So we  are now  stating the  reasons why  the writ petitions were dismissed.      What should  be the  correct criteria  for allotment of chambers to the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association was the  issue raised  in the  petitions. Most  of them were filed  by   the  Advocates-on-Record.   One  was   by  their Association. Their  main grievance  was that  so long as the necessity  of   Advocates-on-Record  for   chambers  is  not satisfied neither the existing chambers nor the new chambers should be  allotted to  senior advocates and other advocates who are  not  Advocates-on-Record.  the  relief  which  they wanted was  that the  ratio  recommended  by  the  allotment Committee and  approved by  the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India be  declared as  arbitrary and  illegal. The remaining petitions were by those advocates who had to ventilate their individual grievances.      We will  first deal  with the  contention raised by the petitioners in  Writ Petition  Nos. 883  of 1990 and 1223 of 1990, that  not making  available chambers to the Advocates- on-Record within  the 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   practice   any profession.  Practising   legal  professional   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  be 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

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.      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 fair and just  manner and  nor 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 when, to whom, to what extent and on what terms and conditions he should allot chambers.      The other  contention raised on behalf of the Adocates- on-Record  was   that  proposed  allotment  of  chambers  to Advocates-on-Record,  non-Advocates-on-Record   and   Senior Advocates in  the ratio  of 7:2:1 is not consistent with the rule framed  by the  Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and also arbitrary and,  therefore, violative  of Article  14 of  the Constitution. The rules which at present govern allotment of chambers are  Lawyers’ Chambers  (Allotment  and  Occupancy) Rules. The  relevant rules  are Rules 2 to 4 and 23 and they are as under:      "Rule 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.      4. Allotment of Chambers to applicants shall be made in the following order or priority:      (i) Advocates-on-Record who are regularly practicing in the Court;      (ii) Advocates  not being Senior Advocates, resident in Delhi/New Delhi  who are  regularly practicing in this Court and      (iii) Senior  Advocates resident in Delhi/New Delhi who are regularly practicing in this Court.      Provided, however,  that allotment  to persons  falling under categories  (ii) and (iii) above may be in exceptional cases only.      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."      In  accordance  with  these  rules  the  Hon’ble  Chief Justice of  India has  been appointing  allotment  Committee from time  to time.  The Allotment Committee consists mainly of the  Advocates who  are members  of the Supreme Court Bar Association. On the basis of the recommendations made by the Allotment Committee Chief Justice of India ordinarily allots chambers to  the advocates but as exceptional cases chambers have been  allotted to  advocates who  are not Advocates-on- Record. On  1995, the Allotment Committee recommended to the Hon’ble the  Chief Justice  of India  that chambers  may  be allotted to the Advocates-on-Record, non-Advocates-on-Record and  Senior   Advocates  in   the  ratio   of  7:2:1.   This recommendation was accepted and by a letter dated 29.8.1995, the members  of  the  Supreme  Court  Bar  Association  were informed about  it. we  quote below  the said  letter  dated 29.8.95:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

                  "F.No.25/LCA/SCA/Genl.                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                               Dated: 29th August, 1995 From: P.N. Jain Asstt. Registrar (Admn.) To    The Hony, Secretary,    Supreme Court Bar Association,    New Delhi. Sir,      As  you   are  aware,   the  Allotment   Committee  had recommended to invite applications from (1) Senior Advocates and  (2)   Junior  Advocates  (Non-Advocates-on-Record)  for preparing fresh  separate panels  and (3) from Advocates-on- Record for  updating the  existing panel  for  allotment  of Lawyers’  Chambers   and  that  the  allotment  be  made  in accordance with  the  roster  maintained  in  the  following order:      "The first  four vacancies  be allotted to Advocate-on- Record, the  firth vacancy  to the  Junior  Advocates  (non- Advocates-on-Record), sixth, seventh and eighth vacancies to Advocates-on-Record, 9th  vacancy to  the  Junior  Advocates (non-Advocates-on-Record)   and    tenth   to   the   senior Advocates."      The above  recommendations have  been approved  by  the Hon’ble Chief  Justice of India. The Procedure/Criteria laid down for the purpose is as under: 1. SENIOR ADVOCATES:      (a)  Senior Advocates  who  are  mainly  and  regularly           practising in the Supreme Court and are members of           the Supreme court Association.      (b)  they must  have filed  the minimum number of fifty           appearances (Admission and regular hearing matters           excluding CMPs  and Cr.M.Ps)  per year  during the           preceding two  calendar years prior to the date of           application.      (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.  A  panel  will  be  prepared           accordingly. 2. Advocates-on-Record:      (a) An  advocate-on-Record of three years standing only will be  eligible for  allotment or  joint  allotment  of  a chamber.      (b) The  Advocate-on-Record must have filed (or entered appearances on behalf of respondents) on an average 20 cases (i.e. admission/regular  matters and not CMPs./Cr.M.P.s) per annum, in  the course of preceding two years (batch of cases shall be treated as a single case).      (c)  subject   to  the  above  two  requirements  being complied with,  the allotment shall be made according to the date of seniority i.e. the date of registration as Advocate- on-Record. The  names of the eligible persons shall be added at the bottom of the existing approved panel.      (d) Those  persons who  have been allotted a chamber in Delhi  High   Court  Compound  may  not  be  considered  for allotment of a chamber in the Supreme Court.      (e) The filing of Advocates for Government filing shall be excluded. 3. JUNIOR ADVOCATES (NON ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD):      (a) All  Junior Advocates (Non-Advocates-On-Record) who      are mainly  and regularly  practising  in  the  Supreme      court and  are the  members of  the Supreme  Court  Bar      Association.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

    (b)  they   must  have  put  in  not  less  than  fifty      appearances  (Admission  and  Regular  Hearing  matters      excluding C.M.Ps.  and Cr.  M.Ps.) each year during the      preceding two  years prior  to  the  date  of  inviting      applications in the Supreme Court of India.      (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.      Pursuance to  the above,  applications are  invited for      the abovesaid  purpose. The  period of  two  years  for      which the  number  of  filing/appearances  have  to  be      furnished will  be from 1.1.1993 to 31.12.1993 and from      1.1.1994 to 31.12.1994.      ........        ........          ...........                                              Your faithfully                                                   sd/-                               Assistant Registrar (Admn)."      It  was   submitted  that   the  ratio   of  7:2:1   is inconsistent with  Rule 4,  which contemplates  allotment of chambers firstly  to the  Advocates-on-Record  and  only  in exceptional cases  to others. It was submitted that there is a reason  behind this  Rule. Under  the Supreme court Rules, 1966 the Advocates-on-Record hold a special position and are subject  to  certain  obligations  and  duties.  The  Senior Advocates and  non-Advocates-on-Record  are  under  no  such obligation. Thus the requirement and necessity of Advocates- on-Record to  have a chamber is much greater and, therefore, so long  as their  necessity is  not  satisfied  no  chamber should be allotted to Senior Advocates and non-advocates-on- Record. Rule  4 recognizes  this necessity  and,  therefore, provides  that  the  Advocates-on-Record  shall  have  first priority in  the matter of allotment of chambers. It was not disputed by  the learned  counsel  appearing  of  behalf  of Senior  Advocates   and  non-Advocates-on-Record   that  the Advocates-on-Record  have   a  greater   necessity  to  have chambers but  it was contended that it would be unreasonable to  say  that  no  chamber  should  be  allotted  to  Senior Advocates  or   a  non-Advocate-on-Record   till   all   the Advocates-on-Record are provided with chambers.  It was also submitted by  them that  Rule 4 was never understood to mean that no chamber should be provided to a Senior Advocate or a non-Advocate-on-Record till  all the Advocates-on-Record are provided with  chambers. In  our opinion,  Rule 4  cannot be read the  way in  which the  Advocates-on-Record wants us to read it.  Rule 4  only indicates  the manner  in  which  the discretionary  power  to  allot  chambers  is  going  to  be exercised.  The   rule  itself   contemplates  allotment  of chambers to  persons falling  under categories  2 and  3  in exceptional cases.  Chambers were in fact allotted from time to time  to the  Advocates falling under categories 2 and 3. That had  led to some dissatisfaction amongst the Advocates- on-Record as  they feel  that some  of those allotments were not  proper.   It  appears   that  the  Allotment  Committee recommended fixing  a ratio  of 7:2:1 and also the manner in which the  allotment should  be done  in accordance with the said ratio by suggesting a roster, with a view to remove the cause for  the  dissatisfaction  amongst  the  Advocates-on- Record. It  appears that  since the recommendation came from the Allotment Committee which mainly consists of the members of the  Supreme Court  Bar Association  and was  found to be reasonable and  likely to satisfy the needs of all the three categories of the Advocates the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India  accepted  the  same.  On  consideration  of  all  the relevant aspects  it is  not  possible  to  agree  with  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

submission that non-advocates-on-Record and Senior Advocates do not  have any  need to have chambers in the Supreme Court premises. While  allotting chambers  what is  required to be considered is the relative needs of all the three categories of advocates.  Considering the  object of providing facility of chambers and the need to balance the interests of all the three categories  of advocates  the ratio of 7:2:1 cannot be regarded  as   unreasonable  or  arbitrary.  Therefore,  the contention that  Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India in doing so has acted unreasonably must be rejected.      Some other  grievances were  also made  at the  time of hearing of  these petitions.  They are more in the nature of complaints and suggestions and, therefore, they can properly be dealt  with by  the Allotment Committee and ultimately by the Hon’ble  the Chief Justice of India. We may only suggest that Hon’ble  the Chief  Justice of  India, if  he deems  it proper, may  appoint a  Committee of  two or  three  Hon’ble Judges of  this court  to look into the suggestions made for modification of  the Rules and the new principle to help him in taking the final decision in the matter.