9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1639 - SC - Indian LawsAllotment of chambers to AOR - invitation for applications for allotment of chambers - pre-condition of being a member of SCBA before consideration of allotment of chambers - Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules - Change of block period - Validity of condition of membership of SCBA contained in Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules - Validity of condition of resident of an advocate in Delhi/New Delhi contained in Rule 3. Change of block period - Held that - Since sometime has elapsed when the block period was fixed by the Judges Allotment Committee and we have extended the date for making application the only modification which can be done is to put the block period from October 01 2013 to September 30 2018. It is during this period the applicant shall have to satisfy the criteria and appearances or filing - We are also not accepting the suggestion given in Para 5 of the Note that the allotment of chambers should be a continuous process. There has been a consistent practice in the past of inviting applications from time to time whenever lawyers chambers become available for allotment. It should be maintained as there is no reason to depart from the same. Otherwise the purpose of fixing proximate block period shall also get defeated. At the same time we also find that last such applications were invited in the year 2004 and considerable period has lapsed thereafter. Therefore in order to ensure that such situation does not occur in future we are of the opinion that Notice inviting such applications should be at least once in three years. Validity of Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules - Held that - The entire edifice of the petitioners case stands demolished. No doubt SCAORA has its significant position in this Court. However we are concerned with the issue of allotment of chambers. The petitioners have submitted that members of SCAORA should be treated as sufficient eligibility for allotment of chambers. Yet in order to become a member of SCAORA as per Rule 4 of the Rules and Regulations of SCAORA itself an advocate has to be the member of SCBA. Therefore unless an advocate is an AOR and also a member of SCBA he cannot become the member of SCAORA. This requirement itself accepts the position that SCBA is an umbrella organisation and also recognises the vital role it plays. Thus the argument based on Article 14 of the Constitution would be of no avail - there is no reason to interfere with the requirement of being a member of SCBA for submitting application for allotment of chambers. Validity of condition of resident of an advocate in Delhi/New Delhi contained in Rule 3 - Held that - If an aerial distance is taken his residence falls within 16km radius as he is residing in Indirapuram Ghaziabad (U.P.). Plea is that if the definition of resident member is seen as defined in Rule 3(ix) it means a member residing and practicing as an advocate in Delhi or its suburbs and suburbs clearly includes NCR also. Therefore all those who are staying in NCR should be made eligible for allotment of chambers. Many advocates who appear in courts in Delhi including the Supreme Court commute on daily basis from their residences which fall in neighbouring States. It is time to reconsider as to whether requirement of residence in Delhi or New Delhi in Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules needs to be retained or it should be extended to some areas of neighbouring States which are quite close to the vicinity of the Supreme Court. May be by fixing a particular radial distance from the Supreme Court the problem can be tackled - As it would require consideration on so many aspects we are of the opinion that this issue can be considered by the Judges Allotment Committee. We make it clear that it is for the Committee to take a final view on this issue after taking into consideration all the relevant factors. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Change of Block Period 2. Calendar Year for Eligibility 3. Membership Requirement of SCBA 4. Minimum Filings and Appearances Requirement 5. Continuous Process for Allotment of Chambers 6. Validity of Residency Requirement in Delhi/New Delhi Detailed Analysis: 1. Change of Block Period: The petitioners requested different block periods for eligibility criteria, suggesting periods such as January 01, 2005 to October 17, 2017/May 16, 2018, January 01, 2005 to December 31, 2017, and January 01, 2004 to December 31, 2017. The Court noted that the Chamber Allotment Committee initially recommended a block period from January 01, 2009 to December 31, 2014, which was later changed to January 01, 2010 to December 31, 2015. The Judges' Committee fixed the block period from June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016, which was approved by the CJI. The Court found rationale in maintaining a proximate block period to ensure active practice and modified the block period to October 01, 2013 to September 30, 2018. 2. Calendar Year for Eligibility: Petitioners suggested changing the calendar year for eligibility from June to June to January to December. The Court accepted the suggestion to consider a continuous period of 730 days for eligibility criteria, counted from the last cut-off date in 2004 till September 30, 2018. 3. Membership Requirement of SCBA: Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules mandates that advocates must be members of the SCBA to apply for chambers. Petitioners argued this was discriminatory and violated Articles 14, 19(1)(c), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court upheld the rule, noting that SCBA is an umbrella association representing all advocates, including AORs, and that membership of SCBA is necessary for becoming a member of SCAORA. The Court referenced the judgment in Vinay Balachandra Joshi, which stated that there is no fundamental right to be allotted a chamber within court premises. 4. Minimum Filings and Appearances Requirement: Petitioners questioned the requirement of minimum filings and appearances, arguing it should not have changed from the 2004 criteria. The Court accepted suggestions from the Note, allowing for the consideration of appearances and filings in a continuous period of 730 days before September 30, 2018. 5. Continuous Process for Allotment of Chambers: Petitioners suggested that the allotment of chambers should be a continuous process. The Court rejected this suggestion, maintaining the practice of inviting applications from time to time but recommended that notices for applications should be issued at least once every three years. 6. Validity of Residency Requirement in Delhi/New Delhi: One petition challenged the requirement that advocates must reside in Delhi/New Delhi to be eligible for chamber allotment. The Court acknowledged the changed circumstances and developments around Delhi, suggesting that the Judges' Allotment Committee reconsider this requirement, potentially extending eligibility to nearby areas in neighboring states within a specific radial distance from the Supreme Court. Conclusion: The Court disposed of the writ petitions by accepting certain suggestions, modifying the block period, maintaining the requirement for SCBA membership, and suggesting reconsideration of the residency requirement by the Judges' Allotment Committee.
|
