Plea against restricting district court chambers to lawyers residing in capital: Delhi HC asks committees to decide

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday disposed of a petition raising concerns that the allotment of lawyers' chambers in certain district courts is restricted to advocates who have permanent residence within the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi [Piyush Gupta Advocate Vs The Chamber Allotment Committee & Ors.].

The Division Bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed the portfolio committees of the respective district courts of Karkardooma, Dwarka and Rohini to decide the issue.

"This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the eligibility conditions put in the rules of allotment of chambers in respect of Karkardooma, Dwarka and Rohini Courts on the ground that the rules therein stipulate that a member of the association must necessarily be a resident of NCT of Delhi to be eligible for allotment of chamber. Let the issue raised be decided by the respective district courts and a decision thereof be taken," the Court directed.

The order was passed after Advocate Sameer Vashisht, representing the chamber allotment committees, submitted that the issue can be decided by the respective portfolio committees of the concerned district courts. 

The petitioner agreed with this suggestion.

Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition and left the issue to be decided by the concerned committees.

The public interest litigation (PIL) petition before the Court was filed by Advocate Piyush Gupta.

He challenged the residence criteria for chamber allotment in the premises of the Karkardooma, Rohini, and Dwarka district courts. The rules stipulate that only advocates who are permanent residents of Delhi shall be considered eligible for chamber allotment.

The petitioner contended that these rules vary from the Delhi High Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, 1980.

The petitioner referred to the High Court’s 2010 decision in PK Dash & Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. to call for uniformity, transparency and non-arbitrariness in the distribution of lawyers’ chambers.

He submitted that pursuant to the PK Dash judgment, territorial eligibility for chamber allotment under the Delhi High Court rules was expanded in 2017.

However, corresponding amendments were not carried out in the district court rules governing chamber allotment at the Karkardooma, Dwarka and Rohini court complexes.

It was contended that while the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court have recognised a broader NCR-based territorial framework, the continued enforcement of NCR-centric conditions at the district court creates unequal treatment among similarly placed advocates.

The petitioner had called for measures to ensure that the territorial eligibility for chamber allotment in the district courts conforms to the High Court's expanded eligibility for the same.

In the last hearing of the matter, the Court had suggested that if there are other advocates with similar grievances, they too could join as petitioners to the PIL petition filed by advocate Gupta.

Gupta's counsel, advocate Malhotra, had told the Court that he would speak in this regard with such advocates whose allotment applications were rejected due to the residence criterion.

Today, advocate Malhotra apprised the Court that he has spoken to a few advocates in this regard and sought more time to speak to all such aggrieved advocates.

However, the Court decided to dispose of the PIL, adding that other aggrieved lawyers are free to pursue their individual remedies.

"We will dispose it off for this case. Individual remedies are available to them. We take on record that the nine advocates whose request for allotment has been rejected under Rule 3, shall seek their remedies as available under law against those rejections," the Court stated.