There are some issues in the legal profession that everyone quietly knows about, but very few openly question. A recent Public Interest Litigation (PIL), before the Allahabad High Court raised one such issue where the effectiveness of neutral policies in addressing structural inequality has been openly challenged - the issue of chamber allotment for women advocates.

At one level, the case appears to be simply administrative as it challenges the proposed process of allotting chambers within the High Court premises. But at another level, it raises a far deeper and somewhat uncomfortable question: is neutrality enough in a profession marked by structural inequality?

The PIL, filed by Advocate Jahnavi Singh along with several women advocates, challenges the absence of any reservation or special provision for women in the proposed chamber allotment scheme. When the matter came up on March 30 this year, the Division Bench led by the Chief Justice recorded that the rules governing chamber allotment are still under process and yet to be finalised. The case has now been directed to be listed as fresh on May 1.

At this stage, there is no final adjudication. But perhaps the significance of this case lies not in what has been decided, but in what has finally been raised.

The PIL highlights the crucial role chambers play in a lawyer's practice. For a practicing lawyer, a chamber is more than just a physical space. It is a workspace, a meeting room, a place to store files and, most importantly, a space that gives a sense of belonging within the court. Without a chamber, lawyers are reduced to managing client meetings in corridors, drafting in shared or temporary spaces and lacking the privacy that legal work often demands.

For women advocates, these challenges are often accompanied by concerns of safety, accessibility and dignity within crowded court premises. In that sense, chamber allotment is not merely about infrastructure; it is about equal participation in the profession. If the PIL succeeds, it could pave the way for greater inclusivity in the legal profession, enabling women advocates to practice more effectively and contribute to the growth of the profession.

One of the central arguments raised in the petition is that a “neutral” policy is not always an equal one. A chamber allotment process that does not explicitly discriminate may still lead to unequal outcomes. In fact, that is often how inequality sustains itself quietly - under the guise of neutrality.

For instance, a chamber allotment system that operates purely on seniority, lottery or a “first-come-first-served” basis may seem fair on paper. But in reality, it tends to favour those who already have better access, established practitioners, those with networks, or those who have been historically better represented within the profession.

Women advocates, particularly those without established family or professional backing, often navigate additional layers of difficulty ranging from limited access to mentorship to concerns around safety and workplace dignity.

In such a context, the absence of any positive measure does not create a level playing field. Instead, it results in reinforcing existing disparities.

The issue raised in this PIL is closely connected with constitutional principles. Article 14 does not merely guarantee identical treatment; it also ensures equality in a real and meaningful sense. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that substantive equality requires acknowledging and addressing existing disadvantages.

Article 15(3) goes a step further by explicitly allowing special provisions for women. This is not an exception to equality; it is a tool to achieve it.

Article 19(1)(g), which guarantees the right to practice a profession, cannot be read in isolation. The right becomes illusory if access to essential infrastructure is unequal.

Similarly, Article 21, which includes the right to live with dignity, cannot be ignored when discussing working conditions within court premises.

Taken together, these provisions suggest that equality is not just about uniform rules, but about ensuring fair outcomes.

The PIL gains additional relevance in light of recent developments before the Supreme Court.

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court in the case of Yogamaya MG v. Union of India has already recognised the underrepresentation of women in the legal profession by mandating 30% reservation in state bar councils. This was a clear acknowledgment that structural barriers exist and need to be addressed through affirmative measures.

Additionally, a separate matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court seeking a uniform, gender-sensitive policy for chamber allotment across courts in India.

The present PIL fits directly into this broader context. It essentially argues that if representation in governance requires reservation, then access to professional infrastructure should not be left out.

The PIL before the Allahabad High Court is not just about chamber allotment. It is about how equality is understood within the legal profession. The legal profession often speaks the language of rights, equality and justice. But it must also be willing to examine whether its own internal structures reflect those values.

As a young lawyer, it is difficult not to see this issue as deeply personal. Many of us are still finding our footing in a system that is both inspiring and, at times, exclusionary. Whether the Court ultimately grants relief or not, this case has already achieved something important: it has started a conversation that the profession can no longer afford to avoid. And sometimes, that is where real change begins.

Roshni Ibrahim is an advocate practicing before the Allahabad High Court.