Full Judgment Text
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.