The Delhi High Court has disposed of a public interest petition challenging the requirement that advocates must be permanent residents of Delhi to obtain lawyers’ chambers in certain district courts, directing the concerned court committees to examine the issue. The order shifts the spotlight to local decision-making bodies and leaves affected lawyers to pursue individual remedies if aggrieved.
The plea, filed by Advocate Piyush Gupta, questioned the eligibility rules governing chamber allotment at the Karkardooma, Dwarka and Rohini court complexes. The impugned provisions restrict allotment to advocates who are permanent residents of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Gupta argued that this condition is inconsistent with the broader territorial framework adopted under the Delhi High Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, 1980, particularly after amendments introduced following the 2010 ruling in PK Dash v. Bar Council of Delhi.
He contended that while eligibility norms at the High Court level were expanded to align with an NCR-based approach, similar changes were not made in district court rules, resulting in unequal treatment of advocates practicing within the region.
A Division Bench comprising Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora recorded the submission of counsel for the chamber allotment committees that the matter could appropriately be examined by the respective portfolio committees of the district courts. Accepting this course, the Bench directed that “the issue raised be decided by the respective district courts and a decision thereof be taken.”
The Court also noted that individual advocates whose applications had been rejected under the residence rule remain free to challenge those decisions through available legal remedies, and formally disposed of the PIL.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
