Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has referred to its Portfolio Committee the question of whether advocates residing in the National Capital Region can be considered eligible for chamber allotments in Delhi's district courts. The court disposed of a writ petition filed by an advocate who contested the existing residence-based eligibility criteria applicable to the Shahdara/Karkardooma, Dwarka, and Rohini District Courts, which currently restrict allotments to residents of the National Capital Territory alone.

The petitioner, an advocate, filed a writ petition challenging the residence-based eligibility condition contained in the rules governing allotment of lawyers’ chambers in the Shahdara/Karkardooma, Dwarka and Rohini District Courts. The petitioner sought quashing of the condition restricting eligibility to advocates residing within the National Capital Territory of Delhi and prayed for recognition of eligibility on the basis of residence within the National Capital Region. Directions were also sought for amendment and harmonisation of the respective District Courts Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules with the Delhi High Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment & Occupancy) Rules, 1980. Further, the petitioner sought reconsideration of candidature of advocates denied allotment solely on the ground of residence outside Delhi and interim protection regarding allotment of available chambers.

Also Read: Credible Eyewitness Testimony Sufficient For Murder Conviction Even Without Recovery Of Weapons: Supreme Court

The respondents submitted that the issue raised could appropriately be referred to the Portfolio Committee of the High Court through the Registrar General for a decision concerning the concerned District Courts. The petitioner agreed to this course. Reference was made to the Supreme Court decision in Gopal Jha v. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (2019) 13 SCC 161.

The Court recorded that the petitioner had challenged “the eligibility condition stipulated in the rules of allotment of chambers in respect of Shahadra/Karkardooma, Dwarka and Rohini Courts on the ground that the Rules contemplate that a member of the association who is a resident of National Capital Territory of Delhi to be eligible for allotment of chamber and not a resident of National Capital Region.”

The Court reproduced paragraphs 39 and 40 of the decision in Gopal Jha v. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. It recorded “Prescription of the requirement of resident in Delhi or New Delhi in Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules: In one of the petitions, this provision is challenged. It is submitted that there is no rationale in prescribing the condition that an advocate to become eligible for allotment of chamber should be a resident in Delhi or New Delhi.”

It further reproduced “It is time to reconsider as to whether requirement of residence in Delhi or New Delhi in Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules needs to be retained or it should be extended to some areas of neighbouring States which are quite close to the vicinity of the Supreme Court.”

The Court also recorded the submission of the Standing Counsel that the issue raised in the petition be referred to the Portfolio Committee of the High Court through the Registrar General relating to the concerned District Courts for a decision. It noted that counsel for the petitioner agreed with this submission.

The Court stated, “Suffice to state that in view of the submission made by Mr. Vashishth to which Mr. Malhotra agrees, the issue which has been raised in the petition be considered by the Portfolio Committees of this Court relating to the above District Courts and a decision thereof be taken.” It further recorded, “The decision so taken should be communicated to the petitioner.”

The Court also noted, “We take on record Mr. Malhotra’s submission that the nine Advocates (list E) whose requests for allotment were rejected on the ground that they are not eligible under Rule 3, shall seek their remedy as available in law.”

Also Read: 'Rigour Of Law Applies Equally To All, Including State And Its Instrumentalities': Delhi High Court Rejects Centre's Bid To Revive Writ Dismissed Thrice For Non-Prosecution

The Court directed, “the issue which has been raised in the petition be considered by the Portfolio Committees of this Court relating to the above District Courts and a decision thereof be taken. The decision so taken should be communicated to the petitioner. We take on record Mr. Malhotra’s submission that the nine Advocates (list E) whose requests for allotment were rejected on the ground that they are not eligible under Rule 3, shall seek their remedy as available in law. The petition is disposed of.” and “The pending application does not survive for consideration.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajat Malhotra, Mr. Sudhanshu Sharma, Mr. Saksham Bansal, Ms. Kamayni Tripathi, Ms. Yamini Bansal, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Standing Counsel (Civil), GNCTD with Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Advocate and Ms. Khushboo Mittal, Advocate

Case Title: Sh Piyush Gupta Advocate v. The Chamber Allotment Committee & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:1629-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 2473/2026
Bench: Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora