SC criteria for Allotment of Lawyers Chambers challenged for discriminating between AoRs

An Advocate-on-Record (AoR) has challenged the Supreme Court’s latest notice inviting applications for the allotment of Lawyers’ Chambers as being arbitrary, unreasonable and liable to be struck down for violating Article 14 of the Constitution..Chambers on Supreme Court premises are generally allotted in accordance with the Allotment of Lawyers’ Chambers Rules. A notice inviting such applications was made initially in October last year. Applicants could apply for chambers under three categories i.e. AoR, Non-AoR and Senior Advocate..As per the October 2017 notice, applicants were eligible to apply for chamber allotment under the category of AoR, only if they had filed (or entered appearance on behalf of respondents) an average of 20 cases per annum in the court of any two consecutive years between June 1, 2011 and June 6, 2016..However, as per petitioner and AoR Anirudh Sanganeria, these criteria effectively create an artificial division of a homogenous class of Advocates, who have been AoRs of the Court for two consecutive years and who have 20 filings per annum..The issue is that the cut-off dates mentioned above (i.e. June 1, 2011 to June 6, 2016) creates a distinction between those who became AORs in or before 2014, and those who became AORs in 2015 or 2016. The issue is explained by Sanganeria, who falls in the latter category of AoR, as follows:.“An Advocate who qualifies as an AOR in 2014, if he has filed 20 cases between 01/06/2014 till 30/05/2015 (one year) and 20 cases from 01/06/2015 till 30/06/2016 (second year), would be eligible to apply for allotment of lawyers’ chambers under the AOR category as per the impugned Notice. .However, an Advocate who qualifies as an AOR in the year 2015 or 2016, would be rendered ineligible to apply for allotment of lawyers’ chambers under the AOR category as per the impugned notice, even if he has the requisite number of filings as the period of reckoning of the two consecutive years for him ends on 30/06/2016…”.It has been pointed out that such criteria are not based on any intelligible differentia. Further, it is noted that introducing cut-off dates between June and May, rather than reckoning the period from January to December is not in tune with previous practice..“In the previous years when this Hon’ble Court has invited applications for allotment of Lawyers’ Chambers, in 1995, 2001 and 2004, the reckoning year for determining eligibility has been January to December. However, despite the established practice, in the impugned Notice, the calendar year is from June to May instead of January to December.”.In a bid to address such grievances, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had proposed certain modifications to the Supreme Court authorities in January this year. In a meeting held thereafter on March 15, these proposals were also considered by the Chamber Allotment Committee..Following this meeting, the SCBA had also issued a circular notifying its members that the following modifications have been approved as regards the eligibility criteria to apply as an AoR for chambers:.Calendar Year now will be January to December instead of June to May.The period of eligibility for filing/appearances shall be from 01.2004 to 31st December 2017 (Two consecutive years). .However, a revised notice issued by the Supreme Court on March 16 did not reflect these changes. Rather, it mainly reiterated the terms of the October 2017 notice. As noted in the petition, the eligibility criteria for AoRs are:.“(a) Who must have filed (or entered appearances on behalf of respondents) on an average 20 cases per annum (i.e. admission/regular matters and not I.A.s/Cr.M.Ps. and Government Filing save and except interim applications in Public Interest Litigations which are substantive applications and decided by the Court and such petitions like Special Leave Petitions filed with Applications for condonation of delay and listed in court with Diary No. and disposed off with Diary No. by the Court) each year either for any two consecutive years between 01/06/2011 and 30/06/2016 or for any two non-consecutive years between 01/06/2011 and 30/06/2011 provided the Advocate/Applicant concerned availing the option of filing during two non-consecutive years has been on the voters’ list of Supreme Court Bar Association for the entire block period (a batch of cases shall be treated as a single case).’”.Adding to the list of grievances, it is also noted that the date for submitting the applications falls on July 31, 2018 – over two years from the cut-off date mentioned above..Given these contentions, Advocate Sanganeria has argued,.“The petitioner, and other Advocates who became AORs of this Court in the year 2015 and 2016 would suffer great prejudice and injustice due to such whimsical selection of the cut-off date of 30/06/2016 as they would be compelled to apply under the Non-Advocate-On-Record category, despite being AORs and having filed a minimum of 20 cases per annum for two consecutive years as on the date of submission of their applications.”.Therefore, it has been prayed that the Supreme Court direct that appropriate modification be made to the revised notification, so that.the period of reckoning the eligibility criteria for AoR be from January to Decemberthe cut off period of eligibility for filing/appearances be December 31, 2017, instead of June 30, 2016.In the interim, it has been prayed that the challenged notification be stayed until the writ petition is disposed of..Read the petition: