Eligibility for Lawyers’ Chambers Allotment to be Harmonized with NCR Residency Criteria Across District Courts.

The Petitioner, an advocate, filed a writ petition challenging the residence-based eligibility criteria stipulated in the allotment rules for lawyers’ chambers at the Shahdara (Karkardooma), Dwarka, and Rohini District Courts.

The existing rules restrict eligibility for chamber allotment to advocates residing within the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi, excluding those residing in the National Capital Region (NCR).

The Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to quash these restrictions and amend the rules to harmonize them with the Delhi High Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment & Occupancy) Rules, 1980, which are more inclusive.

The court primarily relied on the legal principles and observations laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Gopal Jha v. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (2019) 13 SCC 161.

In that precedent, the Supreme Court acknowledged that due to urban expansion, many advocates commute from neighboring states (NCR) and suggested that residence-based eligibility rules should be reconsidered by fixing a radial distance or extending the definition of "resident" to include suburbs.

The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the eligibility criteria but instead adopted the procedural approach suggested by the Respondent's counsel.

Drawing parity from the Gopal Jha decision, the Court noted that changed circumstances and regional development necessitated a re-evaluation of the "residence in Delhi" requirement.

The Bench observed that since the Supreme Court had previously referred such administrative policy matters to its own Judges' Allotment Committee, a similar referral to the Portfolio Committees of the Delhi High Court was appropriate.

This ensures that the administrative bodies governing the specific District Courts (Shahdara, Dwarka, and Rohini) can consider all relevant factors, including the Petitioner’s reference to the Supreme Court Bar Association's inclusive rules for NCR residents.

The Committees are tasked with taking a decision on the amendment of the rules, which must then be communicated to the Petitioner.

Regarding the specific advocates whose applications were already rejected, the Court noted they may seek independent legal remedies.

All pending applications were closed.