Although Supreme Court Rules provide for the allocation of one-half of a singly-occupied chamber to a son, daughter or spouse, the court has held that the application must be made at the time of the allottee's death and not later.
—
LAST week, the Supreme Court declined 'relief' to a daughter who sought allotment of the chamber allotted to her father after the latter's demise.
A Bench comprising Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that it could not be overlooked that a lawyer's chamber within the premises of the Supreme Court is highly coveted by other lawyers and there is a huge number of lawyers with much longer standing waiting in queue for allotment of chambers.
"It cannot also be overlooked that chambers become available only rarely, usually on account of the death of the allottee," the Bench said.
The Bench was ruling on a petition filed by Anamuka Dewan whose father Balraj Dewan died on June 13, 2021. Balraj Dewan was an advocate-on-record. He had been allotted chamber no. 108, C.K. Daphtary Block, Supreme Court of India, in 2006–07.
The petitioner made a representation for the chamber allotted to her father but the competent authority did not consider the request favourably.
Rule 7B of Lawyers' Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules provides that in case of the 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 such a person is practising in the Supreme Court.
There is also a provision to allot only one-half of the chamber to the surviving child or spouse.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner's application came to be considered on November 20, 2023. The petitioner had already qualified as a lawyer on July 22, 2023, she informed the court.
She added that a direction was issued by the Supreme Court on January 16, 2023, to facilitate the petitioner to make a representation to the allotment committee and direction to consider the application per the law and on its merit.
Arora thus sought to argue that since the petitioner made a fresh representation and the committee considered the matter on a date when the petitioner had already enrolled as a lawyer, the allotment could be made by sympathetically applying the provisions of Rule 7B of Lawyers' Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules.
Rejecting the argument, the Bench held that Rule 7B provides that the right of consideration accrues on the death of the allottee.
The said date could not be, the Bench ruled, shifted based on the date of consideration of the application for allotment by the children of the allottee.
"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.
"Therefore, if either the date of consideration of the application or the date of qualification of the applicant is taken into consideration, the operation of Rule 7B will be inconsistent and will generate different results," the Bench observed.
The Bench thus declared that the right for consideration under Rule 7B accrues on the date of death of the allottee not based on the consideration of the application for allotment by the children of allloted.
On the facts of the case, the Bench held that the petitioner was not a practising lawyer in the Supreme Court when her father died on June 13, 2021. Therefore, on the date of the death of the allottee, she was disentitled to favourable consideration under the provisions of Rule 7B of the allotment Rules.
The Bench thus dismissed the petition.
The Bench, however, allowed the petitioner to remove the belongings from the allotted chamber, on a date convenient to the authorities and the petitioner.
Click here to read the order.