An interesting challenge has been mounted in Supreme Court by a lawyer..Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain has challenged constitutional vires of Rule 7B of Supreme Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules as per which, in the event of death of a lawyer who has a chamber in Supreme Court, the chamber will be allotted to his/her son, daughter or spouse if such person is practicing in the Supreme Court..In the petition filed through advocate K Parameshwar, Jain has contended that though the Rules by themselves do not prescribe any criteria for allotment of chambers, the same has now been prescribed by way of a notice dated October 31, 2017. The notice mandates a minimum number of appearances as well as seniority as criteria to be eligible for allotment of chamber..It is Jain’s argument that Rule 7B runs contrary to the criteria prescribed by the notice issued under the Rules since it makes a son, daughter or spouse eligible for chamber despite not having the Seniority or appearances prescribed..Jain has submitted that Rule 7B violates the level playing field for advocates, thereby impinging upon Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution..Relying on Article 39 of the Constitution, Jain has also submitted that Rule 7B creates a personal heritable right in a public property/good thus leading to concentration of material resources to the common detriment..It is also Jain’s argument that first generation lawyers in supreme court are put to additional difficulty due to Rule 7B..Jain has, therefore, prayed for quashing the impugned rule and cancelling all allotments made till date under the said Rule..The matter will be heard by a Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan tomorrow..Interestingly, a similar Rule is in force in Delhi High Court also.
An interesting challenge has been mounted in Supreme Court by a lawyer..Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain has challenged constitutional vires of Rule 7B of Supreme Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules as per which, in the event of death of a lawyer who has a chamber in Supreme Court, the chamber will be allotted to his/her son, daughter or spouse if such person is practicing in the Supreme Court..In the petition filed through advocate K Parameshwar, Jain has contended that though the Rules by themselves do not prescribe any criteria for allotment of chambers, the same has now been prescribed by way of a notice dated October 31, 2017. The notice mandates a minimum number of appearances as well as seniority as criteria to be eligible for allotment of chamber..It is Jain’s argument that Rule 7B runs contrary to the criteria prescribed by the notice issued under the Rules since it makes a son, daughter or spouse eligible for chamber despite not having the Seniority or appearances prescribed..Jain has submitted that Rule 7B violates the level playing field for advocates, thereby impinging upon Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution..Relying on Article 39 of the Constitution, Jain has also submitted that Rule 7B creates a personal heritable right in a public property/good thus leading to concentration of material resources to the common detriment..It is also Jain’s argument that first generation lawyers in supreme court are put to additional difficulty due to Rule 7B..Jain has, therefore, prayed for quashing the impugned rule and cancelling all allotments made till date under the said Rule..The matter will be heard by a Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan tomorrow..Interestingly, a similar Rule is in force in Delhi High Court also.
