Sh Piyush Gupta Advocate vs The Chamber Allotment Committee & Ors.

$~62
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 24.02.2026
+ W.P.(C) 2473/2026 CM APPL. 12042/2026
SH PIYUSH GUPTA ADVOCATE
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Mr. Sudhanshu
Sharma, Mr. Saksham Bansal, Ms.
Kamayni Tripathi, Ms. Yamini
Bansal, Advs.
versus
THE CHAMBER ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE & ORS.
.....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Standing
Counsel (Civil), GNCTD with Ms.
Harshita Nathrani, Adv and Ms.
Khushboo Mittal, Adv. for R-1, 3 and
5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. ( ORAL )
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following
prayers:
“a. The writ petition may kindly be accepted with costs
throughout, and writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or
any other appropriate writ, thereby quashing and setting aside
the residence-based eligibility condition restricting
consideration for allotment of lawyers’ chambers only to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:20:32
W.P.(C) 2473/2026 Page 1 of 5

advocates residing within the National Capital Territory of
Delhi, and directing the Respondents to recognise eligibility on
the basis of residence within the National Capital Region in
accordance with the constitutional framework governing
allotment of lawyers’ chambers.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to
suitably amend, harmonise and implement the District Courts
Shahdara/Karkardooma Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and
Occupancy) Rules, 1995, the District Courts Dwarka Lawyers’
Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, 2009 and the
Rohini District Courts Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and
Occupancy) Rules, 2011, so as to ensure that the territorial
eligibility and other governing conditions contained therein are
brought in conformity with, and made consistent with, the
amended Delhi High Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment &
Occupancy) Rules, 1980, thereby establishing a uniform,
transparent and constitutionally compliant framework for
allotment of lawyers’ chambers across all District Court
complexes functioning under the administrative control of the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
c. Issue appropriate directions to the Respondent No 1 to
reconsider the candidature of advocates who were denied
allotment solely on the ground of residence outside the
National Capital Territory of Delhi, including those forming
part of the recognised seniority and eligibility pool in context of
Karkardooma/Shahdara Court Complex, strictly in accordance
with constitutional principles of fairness, non-discrimination
and legitimate expectation.
d. Issue an appropriate direction directing the Respondents that
during the pendency of the present writ petition and until the
issue of territorial eligibility is finally decided, any lawyers’
chamber becoming available for allotment in accordance with
the applicable seniority and eligibility criteria shall not be
allotted to any junior or otherwise ineligible advocate, and that
such chamber(s) be kept reserved for the signatories to the
present Public Interest Litigation, subject to their being
otherwise eligible and entitled to allotment on the basis of
seniority under the applicable rules, in order to protect their
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:20:32
W.P.(C) 2473/2026 Page 2 of 5

rights and to prevent irreparable prejudice.
e. Costs of the writ petition may also be awarded to petitioner.”
2. In effect, the petitioner is challenging the eligibility condition
stipulated in the rules of allotment of chambers in respect of
Shahadra/Karkardooma, Dwarka and Rohini Courts on the ground that the
Rules contemplate that a member of the association who is a resident of
National Capital Territory of Delhi to be eligible for allotment of chamber
and not a resident of National Capital Region.
3. Mr. Sameer Vashishth, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5 has drawn our attention to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Jha v. Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India 2019 13 SCC 161 , more specifically paragraphs 39 and 40 which we
reproduce as under:
“39.Prescription of the requirement of resident in Delhi or New
Delhi in Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules: In one of the petitions,
this provision is challenged. It is submitted that there is no
rationale in prescribing the condition that an advocate to
become eligible for allotment of chamber should be a resident
in Delhi or New Delhi. Argument was that in last few years,
there was exponential growth in the population of Delhi which,
inter alia, necessitated people to shift in areas nearby, like
Noida or Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh, Faridabad or Gurugram
in Haryana. It was submitted that the only purpose for making
the aforesaid provision was that the advocate who is practising
in the Supreme Court is readily available and, therefore, he is
living in the vicinity of the Supreme Court. It was submitted
that some of the areas which are mentioned above are closer to
the Supreme Court than many areas in Delhi itself. Therefore,
such a provision has lost its rationality and purpose. The
petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1063 of 2018 submits that
insofar as he is concerned, if an aerial distance is taken, his
residence falls within 16 km radius as he is residing in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:20:32
W.P.(C) 2473/2026 Page 3 of 5

Indirapuram, Ghaziabad (U.P.). Plea is that if the definition of
resident member is seen, as defined in Rule 3(ix), it means a
member residing and practising as an advocate in Delhi or its
suburbs and “suburbs” clearly includes NCR also. Therefore,
all those who are staying in NCR should be made eligible for
allotment of chambers.
40. We are of the opinion that having regard to the changed
circumstances and the manner in which areas around Delhi
have developed in past few years, many advocates who appear
in courts in Delhi, including the Supreme Court, commute on
daily basis from their residences which fall in neighbouring
States. It is time to reconsider as to whether requirement of
residence in Delhi or New Delhi in Rule 3 of the Allotment
Rules needs to be retained or it should be extended to some
areas of neighbouring States which are quite close to the
vicinity of the Supreme Court. May be, by fixing a particular
radial distance from the Supreme Court, the problem can be
tackled. As it would require consideration on so many aspects,
we are of the opinion that this issue can be considered by the
Judges' Allotment Committee. We make it clear that it is for the
Committee to take a final view on this issue, after taking into
consideration all the relevant factors.”
4. His submissions is that appropriate shall be the issue which has been
raised by the petitioner in this petition be referred to the Portfolio
Committee of the High Court through the learned Registrar General of this
Court, relating to the concerned District Courts i.e., Shahadra/Karkardooma,
Dwarka and Rohini Courts for a decision.
5. In fact, Mr. Rajat Malhotra, agrees with the submission made by Mr.
Vashishth.
6. Mr. Malhotra also draws our attention to the Rules of allotment of the
lawyers chambers in respect of the Supreme Court to state the same include
the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association residing at Noida,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:20:32
W.P.(C) 2473/2026 Page 4 of 5

Greater Noida, Faridabad and Gurugram can also apply for allotment of
chambers.
7. Suffice to state that in view of the submission made by Mr. Vashishth
to which Mr. Malhotra agrees, the issue which has been raised in the petition
be considered by the Portfolio Committees of this Court relating to the
above District Courts and a decision thereof be taken. The decision so taken
should be communicated to the petitioner.
8. We take on record Mr. Malhotra’s submission that the nine Advocates
(list E) whose requests for allotment were rejected on the ground that they
are not eligible under Rule 3, shall seek their remedy as available in law.
9. The petition is disposed of.
10. The pending application does not survive for consideration.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2026
rt
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRADEEP
SHARMA
Signing Date:28.02.2026
14:20:32
W.P.(C) 2473/2026 Page 5 of 5