Supreme Court rejects plea by lawyer for allotment of her late father's chamber to her

The Supreme Court recently dismissed a plea by a lawyer seeking allotment of her late father's chamber in the Supreme Court premises. [Anamika Dewan v Registrar, Supreme Court of India and Ors.].Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra noted that the petitioner was not a practicing lawyer on the day of her father's demise and was therefore, disentitled to favorable consideration under the allotment Rules..The plea was moved by advocate Anamika Dewan. Her father, Balraj Dewan, was an Advocate-on-Record (AoR) in the Supreme Court and was allotted a chamber in 2006-2007. He passed away in June 2021 and his daughter enrolled as a lawyer about two years later in July 2023..When the petitioner's representation to the competent authority for allotment of her late father's chamber was not favourably considered, she moved the apex court..Rule 7B of Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules provides that in case of death of an allottee of a chamber, the children of the allottee may be allotted a portion of the chamber if the Allotment Committee is satisfied that the person is practicing in the Supreme Court. There is also a provision to allot only one-half of the chamber to the surviving child/spouse..Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the petitioner, stated that on the day the petitioner applied for the allotment of the chamber, she had become a lawyer.She underlined that in January 2023, the Court had directed facilitation of the petitioner to make a representation to the Allotment Committee. Arora argued that since the petitioner had made a fresh representation which was considered on a date when she had already become a lawyer, the allotment could be made sympathetically based on Rule 7B..The Court stated that under Rule 7B, the right of consideration accrues on the death of the allottee and that the date of death could not be shifted based on the date of consideration of the application for allotment."There could be cases when the committee may not be able to consider an application immediately on death. There could also be a situation of the application being kept pending for one reason or the other," the Court emphasized.Therefore, the Court concluded that if the date of consideration of application or the date of qualification of the applicant is taken into consideration, the operation of Rule 7B would be inconsistent and will generate varying results. "In our understanding, the right for consideration under Rule 7B accrues on the date of death of the allottee. This will avoid any inconsistency in the manner of consideration," the Court explained.Therefore, the Court concluded that on the day of the death of her father, the petitioner was not a Supreme Court lawyer and therefore, was not entitled to favourable consideration under Rule 7B. Accordingly, the Court found the plea devoid of merit and dismissed it. .[Read Order]