"I had a 120 sq. feet chamber in Mumbai:" Justice DY Chandrachud urges petitioner to withdraw plea against twin-sharing allotment of new chambers

The Supreme Court on Monday urged a petitioner challenging recent allotment of newly constructed chambers on twin sharing basis, to withdraw his plea in the larger interest of the Bar. .The petitioner's claim was that the chambers are way too small to be shared and should, therefore, be allotted on single-occupancy basis. However, a bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud said that twin sharing allotment will ensure that twice the number of lawyer get chambers which would be a boon in a city like Delhi with extreme weather."Whatever you do will hurt members of the bar. There are lawyers waiting since 1975. When you say single allotment, automatically the lawyers are cut to half. You must also look at how difficult this will be as opposed to people sitting outside in the Delhi heat," remarked Justice Chandrachud. He also reminisced how he used to function out of a chamber which was only 120 square feet in area. "I had a chamber of 120 square feet in Mumbai. But still we conducted our affairs. Delhi is also becoming like Mumbai," he said."Senior Adv (Fali) Nariman used to conduct his affairs from the hallways of the court," Senior Advocate Shekhar Naphade weighed in..Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that a 3-member committee overseeing chamber allotment had agreed to single allotment after there were objections to the initial decision to have twin allotment. "In 2019 July, decision was taken that chambers will be allotted on double allotment basis. We challenged it saying it was 9 by 16 room and thus not possible. Later, double allotment was suspended and a committee was formed. Then there was demand for more chambers. The 3-member committee then saw the chambers and said it should be single allotment," he said..However, subsequently, single allotment was suspended and a new committee was formed. Later the new committee said it would be double allotment, Patwalia said.Justice Chandrachud, however, said that cancelling allotment now or reverting to single allotment would mean that half the allotees would lose out. "Let us do this in spirit of unity which will benefit Bar & Bench of this court. We will permit you to withdraw this and approach the committee...To assert that there should only be single allotment means that half your colleagues also lose out," he remarked.Patwalia persisted saying that as per the rule, it was always supposed to be single allotment. "I tried to divide the chamber in any way but not possible. you need a lawyer, a clerk someone in your chamber. But its not possible. Please defer allotment till representation is decided," he requested. The Court, however, refused to pass any interim order."No no, all members of the committee are members of this bar also. We are not granting any stay. We will keep after 2 weeks," the Court said.It proceeded to allow the petitioner to file a written representation before the "Petitioners say genuine apprehensions will be placed before committee. We permit written representation to be filed. List after 2 weeks," the Court directed.