IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Administrative functioning and decision-making cannot be moved to judicial side of Supreme Court.
(2) Members of Bar, together with litigants, have important role in functioning of judicial institution of Supreme Court – Views of Bar would be solicited and deliberations will take place on administrative side with members of Associations and Bar Council.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.

1. The Supreme Court Bar Association¹[“SCBA”] has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Union Ministry of Urban Development to :-

(i) grant permission for the conversion into a chamber block for lawyers of an entire tract of land admeasuring 1.33 acres situated near the ITO, which has been allotted to the Supreme Court;

(ii) convert the entire area around the Supreme Court as ‘a Supreme Court Complex’ so that all the buildings across the Supreme Court on Bhagwan Das Road including the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of South Asia, Indian Law Institute and Indian Society of International Law can be utilized for conversion into chambers or for being redeveloped as a chamber block / for activities of the Supreme Court or for any other amenities for lawyers; and

(iii) allot a government bungalow which is presently being occupied by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club to the petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner, the number of advocates practicing before the Supreme Court has increased manifold in recent years and the existing chamber blocks are insufficient to accommodate the growing needs of lawyers eligible for allotment. According to the petitioner, an area admeasuring 12.19 acres in the erstwhile Appu Ghar Complex was allotted to the Supreme Court by the Ministry of Urban Development of which a small portion has been utilized for the construction of a new chamber block for advocates practicing before the Supreme Court. In the new chamber block for lawyers, 234 chambers have been constructed which are now allotted on a dual occupancy to accommodate 468 lawyers.

3. The petitioner asserts that out of a total area of 1.33 acres allotted to the Supreme Court by the Union Government near ITO for the construction of an archival block, only 0.50 acres has been earmarked for a chamber block for lawyers. According to the petitioner, only four to five hundred chambers can be constructed in the said area. Since the land admeasuring 1.33 acres is ‘the last piece of vacant land available near the Supreme Court’, the petitioner submits that it should be entirely utilized for constructing chamber blocks for lawyers.

4. According to the petitioner, the archives of the Supreme Court can be housed in the Additional Building Complex where some areas are lying vacant. The petitioner submits that they have an equal right to utilize vacant spaces in lands allotted to the Supreme Court as its members are an integral part of the justice delivery system.

5. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel submitted that:

(i) The allotment of 12.19 acres in the erstwhile Appu Ghar Complex by the Ministry of Urban Development to the Supreme Court was expedited by the institution of a petition on the judicial side by the SCBA;

(ii) After the Additional Building Complex was constructed in 2018-19, a small segment has been utilized for the construction of a chamber block for lawyers in which 234 chambers have been constructed allowing for an occupancy of 468 lawyers;

(iii) The Additional Registrar of the Supreme Court informed the SCBA that 0.50 acres out of 1.33 acres of land have been earmarked for construction of a lawyers’ chamber block, subject to a change of use. Since only four to five hundred chambers can be constructed on the land which has been earmarked, the entirety should be utilized for the construction of chambers for lawyers who are an integral part of the justice delivery system; and

(iv) A petition under Article 32 is maintainable because a change of land use requires judicial intervention and also bearing in mind the precedent of this Court’s intervention on the issue of the electoral college for the SCBA.

6. Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association²[“SCAORA”] submits that the members of the Association are required by the Ru