Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
com
REPORTABLE
VERSUS
WITH
JUDGMENT
A.K. SIKRI, J.
advocates who also claim that they are regularly practicing and
record (AOR), while others do not fall under this category. They
the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India (CJI) has also constituted the
well, which is headed by the Attorney General for India and office
xx xx xx
xx xx xx
xx xx xx
last time in the year 2004. Thereafter, i.e. after a gap of thirteen
Lawyers’ chambers on October 31, 2017 and May 16, 2018 vide
1. SENIOR ADVOCATES
2. ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD
6) As is clear from the above, one of the eligibility conditions for AOR
was filing of twenty cases per annum in the course of any two
consecutive years between June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016 and
senior advocates.
between June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016 for which the
9) Thereafter, revised notice dated May 16, 2018 was issued by the
terms:
2. ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD
3. NON-ADVOCATE-ON-RECORD
period was not met, the SCBA took up the matter again by
chambers were not incorporated in the notice dated May 16, 2018
chambers:
notice dated May 16, 2018. As per them, since their grievance
13) From the aforesaid, it can be seen that following issues have
mentions the block period from June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016.
are: (a) block period should be January 01, 2005 to October 17,
2017/May 16, 2018; (b) January 01, 2005 to December 31, 2017;
(c) Period from January 01, 2004 to May 31, 2011 should also be
31, 2017.
January to December.
continuous process.
which cover all the issues raised. It is, inter alia, stated that
lawyers for allotment of chambers vide Agenda Item No. 10. Vide
this resolution, it was, inter alia, agreed that the block period
under:
block period should be upto December 31, 2015 or June 30, 2016
16) The Hon'ble Judges Committee, inter alia, recommended that the
to June 30, 2016. The same was also approved by the then CJI
learned Attorney General for India in its meeting dated March 15,
2018. The Judges Committee, however, did not accept the same
in its entirety. The earlier block period already notified i.e. June
18) This led to the issuance of the revised notice dated May 16, 2018.
19) On one hearing, when the matters came up before the Court, Mr.
20) When the matters were taken up on October 4, 2018, the learned
“1. …
(i) The consideration of the request for allotment of
22) After hearing the counsel for the parties as well as Mr. Maninder
eligibility criteria shall be counted from the last cut-off date in 2004
is way too off the mark and may have no connection with the
the date when the applications for allotment are invited. It hardly
period of one year for two years and minimum 40 filings or 100
starts from the year 2004, this purpose may be lost in many
starting from the year 2004 i.e. during the year 2004-2005 and
fixing the block period from June 01, 2011 to June 30, 2016 as
contained in the revised notice dated May 16, 2018 viz. fixing the
25) Since, sometime has elapsed when the block period was fixed by
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
26) We are also not accepting the suggestion given in Para 5 of the
get defeated. At the same time, we also find that last such
such situation does not occur in future, we are of the opinion that
years.
27) Validity of Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules: As per this rule, the
which was formed for the welfare of AOR. Therefore, the measure
1 (2017) 9 SCC 1
those advocates practicing before it. When both the SCBA and
other.
29) It was also submitted that such a classification that excludes the
3 (2003) 2 SCC 45
Court;
class of advocates.
the AOR.
would make an inroad into the rights under Article 19(1)(c) of the
31) Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel, who appeared in the
various issues and problems which may occur from time to time,
32) It was further argued that this fact of SCBA, being an umbrella
“4. …
A. An advocate may be considered for enrolment as
Member of the Association if -
33) Based on the aforesaid provisions, they argued that AOR cannot
should be sufficient.
34) It was also submitted that nobody has any right to get allotment of
organisation and also recognises the vital role it plays. Thus, the
avail.
36) The respondents are also correct in their submission that there is
facilities. It is, inter alia, stated that facilities like Library, Parking,
xx xx xx
37) We, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the
apply and become the member of SCBA even now and on that
view thereupon.
that the only purpose for making the aforesaid provision was that
States which are quite close to the vicinity of the Supreme Court.
factors.
41) All these writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
.............................................J.
(A.K. SIKRI)
.............................................J.
(ASHOK BHUSHAN)
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 25, 2018