Important Points
1. To make available a chamber to an Advocate within court premises merely facilitates the exercise of fundamental of practicing legal profession; it cannot be regarded as an integral part of fundamental right.
2. Ratio of 7 : 2 : 1 in the matter of allotment of chambers to Advocates-on-Record, Senior Advocates and non-Advocates-on-Record is in conformity with Rule 4 of Lawyers Chamber (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules and not unreasonable or arbitrary.

Headnote:Lawyers Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules-Rules 2 to 4 and 23-Supreme Court Rules, 1966-Allotment of chambers-Advocates on record vis-a-vis Senior Advocates and Non-Advocates-on-Record - Allotment Committee’s mainly consisting of members of Supreme Court Bar Association recommendation to allot chambers in the ratio of 7 : 2 : 1 to Advocates-on-Record, Senior Advocates and non-Advocate-on-Record respectively - Grievance of Advocates-on-Record that so long as necessity of Advocates-on-Record for chamber is not satisfied other Advocates should not be allotted in terms of Rule 4-Not sustainable- Rule 4 only indicates manner in which discretionary power to allot chamber is exercised -Rule 4 itself contemplate allotment of chamber to other Advocates in exceptional cases-What is required to be considered is relative needs of all three categories of Advocates - Considering object of providing facility of chambers and need to balance interest of all three categories of Advocates ratio of 7:2:1 cannot be regarded as unreasonable or arbitrary.
       Held : It was submitted that the ratio of 7 : 2 : 1 is inconsistent with Rule 4, which contemplates allotment of chambers firstly to the Advocates-on-Record and only in exceptional cases to others. It was submitted that there is a reason behind this Rule. Under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 the Advocates-on-Record hold a special position and are subject to certain obligations and duties. The Senior Advocates and non-Advocates-on-Record are under no such obligation. Thus the requirement and necessity of Advocates-on-Record to have a chamber is much greater and, therefore, so long as their necessity is not satisfied no chamber should be allotted to Senior Advocates and non-Advocates-on-Record. Rule 4 recognizes this necessity and, therefore, provides that the Advocates-on-Record shall have first priority in the matter of allotment of chambers. It was not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Senior Advocates and non-Advocates-on-Record that the Advocates-on-Record have a greater necessity to have chambers but it was contended that it would be unreasonable to say that no chamber should be allotted to Senior Advocates or a non-Advocate-on-Record till all the Advocates-on-Record are provided with chambers. It was also submitted by them that Rule 4 was never understood to mean that no chamber should be provided to a Senior Advocate or a non-Advocate-on-Record till all the Advocates-on-Record are provided with chambers. In our opinion, Rule 4 cannot be read the way in which the Advocates-on-Record want us to read it. Read 4 only indicates the manner in which the discretionary power to allot chambers is going to be exercised. The rule itself contemplates allotment of chambers to persons falling under categories 2 and 3 in exceptional cases. Chambers were in fact allotted from time to time to the Advocates falling under categories 2 and 3. That has led to some dissatisfaction amongst the Advocates-on-Record as they feel that some of those allotments were not proper. It appears that the Allotment Committee recommended fixing a ratio of 7 : 2 : 1 and also the manner in which the allotment should be done in accordance with the said ratio by suggesting a roster, with a view to remove the cause for the dissatisfaction amongst the Advocates-on-Record. It appears that since the recommendation came from the Allotment Committee which mainly consists of the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association and was found to be reasonable and likely to satisfy the needs of all the three categories of the Advocates the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India accepted the same. On consideration of all the relevant aspects it is not possible to agree with the submission that non - Advocates - on - Record and Senior Advocates do not have any need to have chambers in the Supreme Court premises. While allotting chambers what is required to be considered is the relative needs of all the three categories of advocates. Considering the object of providing facility of chambers and the need to balance the interests of all the three categories of advocates the ratio of 7 : 2 : 1 cannot be regarded as unreasonable or arbitrary. Therefore, the contention that Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India in doing so has acted unreasonably must be rejected. (Para 8)
       (ii) Constitution of India-Art. 19(1)(g)-Lawyers’ Chamber (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules-Rules 2, 3, 4 and 23-Right to practice any Profession-Advocates-Right to have allotted chamber within Court premises-Merely facilitates exercise of fundamental right-It cannot be regarded as an integral part of fundamental right-Far from being fundamental right it does not even have the status of a right.
       Held : It was submitted that Article 19(1)(g), guarantees, inter alia, the right to practice any profession. Practising legal profession is thus a fundamental right. An Advocate-on-Record can exercise this fundamental right of his effectively only if he is provided with a chamber within the Supreme Court premises. Therefore, to make a chamber available to him is an integral part of his guaranteed fundamental right. We see no substance in this contention. Even if we proceed on the basis that to practise as an advocate is a fundamental right, no right to be allotted a chamber within the Court premises follows from it. A legal practitioner/an advocate can carry on his legal profession without a chamber. It is not necessary that he should have a chamber within the Court premises. That, which merely facilitates the exercise of the fundamental right cannot be regarded as an integral part of that fundamental right. Far from being a fundamental right it does not even have the status of a right. No law confers such a right on a member of a legal profession nor such a facility has been accepted as a right even otherwise. Making a chamber available to a member of the legal profession practising in a court of law is really a facility provided to him by the Court. This is the true nature and character of the claim made by the Advocates-on-Record, not giving a chamber to him cannot be regarded as violative of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. (Para 4)

Judgment

Nanavati, J.-All these petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution and applications made therein were finally heard on 16.5.1998 and disposed of by passing the following order:

“I.A....../98 in W.P. (C) No. 883/90: Upon being mentioned taken on Board. The applicant in this I.A. is an advocate and is a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association since 1971 but he is not actively practicing in this Court. He is the Chief Editor of the Supreme Court Cases. He has submitted that in view of the fact that in that capacity he has been closely associated with the work and the needs of the Supreme Court and the Bar in the matter of reporting of the decisions of this Court, facility of a chamber may be extended to him in order to enable him to discharge his functions more effectively. In our opinion, it will be more appropriate for the applicant to submit a representation before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India setting out the special facts and circumstances of his case and seek exemption from the provisions contained in the rules providing for allotment since the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India alone is competent to make such exemption. The application is disposed of accordingly.

W.P. (C) No. 628/90 : The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition was regarding consideration of the representation of the petitioner under the Allotment Rules for the purpose of allotment of chamber to him. It is stated that during the pendency of the writ petition the said grievance of the petitioner has been removed and he has been allotted half portion of the chamber. In the circumstances, this writ petition has become infructuous and it is dismissed as such.

In Remaining Matters : Arguments concluded. Detailed reasons will follow. We have heard the learned Attorney General for India/learned ASG, learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties in these matters. For reasons to be given later, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the roster system adopted under the letter dated August 29, 1995 for allotment of chambers to Advocates-on-Record, junior non-Advocates-on- Record and the senior advocates in the ratio of 7:2:1. The said system for allotment is, therefore, upheld. If any of the associations of advocates or any advocate has any suggestion for modification of the said principle the same may be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India who may consider the same. But till any modification is made the existing principle will govern the allotment of chambers. If any of the petitioners in these matters has any individual grievance in the matter of allotment of a chamber, he can submit a representation to the Allotment Committee which may consider the same on merits. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. Interim order shall stand vacated. No costs.”

2. We could not state the reasons then for want of time. So we are now stating the reasons why the writ petitions were dismissed.

3. What should be the correct criteria for allotment of chambers to the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association was the issue raised in the petitions. Most of them were filed by the Advocates-on-Record. One was by their Association. Their main grievance was that so long as the necessity of Advocates-on-Record for chambers is not satisfied neither the existing chambers nor the new chambers should be allotted to senior Advocates and other advocates who are not Advocates-on-Record. The relief which they wanted was that the ratio recommended by the Allotment Committee and approved by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India be declared as arbitrary and illegal. The remaining petitions were by those advocates who had to ventilate their individual grievances.

4. We will first deal with the contention raised by the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 883 of 1990 and 1223 of 1990, that not making available chambers to the Advocates-on-Record within the Supreme Court Compound is violative of their fundamental right under Article 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document