PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1. The petitioner is filing the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the

Transcription

1 PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA TO, HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. The humble petition of the Petitioner above named; MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH: 1. The petitioner is filing the present Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking enforcement of his fundamental right flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in as much as this right has been seriously abrogated by the provisions of the Revised Notice for inviting applications for allotment of Lawyers chambers dated 16 th May, 2018, which arbitrarily sets a cut-off date of 30/06/2016 for determining the eligibility of an Advocate who may apply for allotment of lawyers chambers under the Advocate-on- Record category for the application which is to be submitted by 31 st July, The petitioner, despite possessing the requite eligibility criteria for applying under the Advocate-on-Record category, i.e., filing of on an average 20 cases per annum each year for two consecutive years, is being prevented from doing so, as the cut-off date, which is more than two years prior to the date of submission, is wide off the reasonable mark and erratic, arbitrary and whimsical in the circumstances morefully described below. The petitioner submits that the said Revised Notice which he is aggrieved by, calls for particular consideration of this Hon ble Court as in a purported meeting of the Chambers Allotment Committee held on 15/03/2018,

2 it had been accepted, inter alia, that the reckoning year would be January to December, and not June to May, and further that the cut-off date would be 31/12/2017 instead of 30/06/2016. This information was provided by the SCBA to its members, including the petitioner, vide a Circular dated 15/03/2018. However, curiously and shockingly, in the impugned Revised Notice dated 16/05/2018, the cut-off date remains unchanged and the reckoning year remains June to May. 2. The petitioner is a citizen of India, aged 32 years. He is an Advocate enrolled with the Orissa State Bar Council, bearing Enrolment no. O/288/08. He has been regularly practicing at the Supreme Court of India since the year He is a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association since the year 2012, having Membership No. 63/S/2419. He is an Advocate-on-Record of this Hon ble Court since February, 2016, having AOR Code No The Respondent No. 1 herein is Supreme Court of India, through its Administration General Branch, and the Respondent No. 2 is Supreme Court Bar Association, through its Hony. Secretary. Both the said Respondents are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Hon ble Court. Both are necessary and proper parties for a complete determination and adjudication of the present writ petition. 4. The petitioner currently practices independently and regularly before this Hon ble Court, and has the following numbers of filings (or appearances on behalf of respondents) as an AOR till 31/12/2017 (as

3 per the information available on the website of the Supreme Court of India): Year Cases filed on Appearances on Total behalf of behalf of Petitioner Respondent The petitioner presently operates out of his residential chambers, and uses Chamber No. 26, R.K. Garg Block, Supreme Court of India, for the purpose of sending and receiving correspondences. The allottee of the said Chamber is Mr. R.K. Garg, and the said allottee has kindly permitted the petitioner to use his Chamber address only for the purpose stated above. 6. The allotment of lawyers chambers in the Supreme Court is governed by the Allotment of Lawyers Chambers Rules (As amended upto 14 th May, 2018). Rule 4 thereof, which is pertinent for the Petitioner s case, is as follows: 4. Allotment of chambers to applicants, who are members of the Supreme Court Bar Association, shall be made in the following order:- (i) Advocates-on-Record who are regularly practicing in this Court; (ii) Non Advocates-on-Record resident in Delhi/New Delhi and who are mainly and regularly practicing in this Court; and (iii) Senior Advocates resident in Delhi/New Delhi and who are mainly and regularly practicing in this Court. Provided, however, that allotment shall be made in accordance with the roster maintained in the following order:-

4 The first four vacancies be allotted to Advocates-on-Record, the fifth vacancy to the Non Advocates-on-Record, sixth, seventh and eighth vacancies to Advocates-on-Record, ninth vacancy to the Non Advocates-on-Record and tenth vacancy to Senior Advocates and the cycle shall be repeated in the above order. True Copy of the Allotment of Lawyers Chambers Rules (As amended upto 14 th May, 2018) is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P-1 (Page Nos. ) 7. Thus, the three categories for allotment of chambers to applicants are those of Advocates-on-Record (hereinafter referred to as AOR ), Non-Advocates-on-Record (hereinafter referred to as Non-AOR ) and Senior Advocates. As per the said Rules, an AOR regularly practicing in this Court may apply under the AOR category. 8. The Supreme Court of India, through its Administration General Branch, invited online applications for allotment of lawyer chambers vide its Notice dated 31/10/2017, bearing No. 201A/Appln/2015/SC (AG). The eligibility criteria for the category Advocates-on-Record was stated therein as follows: 2. ADVOCATES-ON-RECORD (a) Who must have filed (or entered appearances on behalf of respondents) on an average 20 cases per annum (i.e. admission/regular hearing matters and not I.A.s/Cr.M.P.s And Government Filing) in the course of any two consecutive years between and (a batch of cases shall be treated as a single case). (b) Subject to the above requirements being complied with, the allotment shall be made according to the date of seniority i.e. the date of registration as AOR.

5 True copy of the Notice dated 31/10/2017, bearing No. 201A/Appln/2015/SC (AG)issued by the Additional Registrar (AG) is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P-2. (Page Nos.) 9. The petitioner, requiring a chamber for running his practice as an AOR of this Hon ble Court, considered applying for the allotment of chambers. However, as the petitioner was uncertain as to which category he should apply under (i.e. AOR or Junior Advocate), he made a representation dated , to the Admn. General Section, Supreme Court of India, seeking clarification as to which category he should apply under. To the said letter, he received a response dated, whereby he was asked to refer to the Notice dated 31/10/2017. True copy of the letter dated regarding allotment of lawyers chamberssubmitted by the petitioner and the response thereto dated, are annexed herewith and marked collectively as ANNEXURE-P-3. (Page Nos. ) 10. Thereafter, vide a letter dated 09/01/2018 written by the Supreme Court Bar Association (hereinafter referred to as SCBA ) through its Secretary, to the Supreme Court of India through its Secretary General, and made available to the SCBA members including the petitioner, on the website of SCBA, the SCBA proposed certain changes to the eligibility criteria for the chamber allotment process. Inter alia, the proposed changes were: 1. Reckoning year from June to May also consider January to December i.e. the Calendar Year. 2. Earlier, for preparing panel of advocates for allotment of Chambers, the requisite number of filings and appearances up to December, 2004 were

6 called for. Ever since then after a gap of 13 years the applications are now invited. Therefore, instead of June 2011/ the date be fixed from till Two consecutive years, the requisite filing by AORs and appearances by Sr. Advocate and Non AOR be also computed to any two Calendar Years from to , any two years in addition to June to May for those who have already submitted applications. True Copy of the letter dated 09/01/2018 issued by the Hony. Secretary, S.C.B.A. (Regd.,) is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P-4(Page Nos. ) 11. The abovementioned letter dated 09/01/2018 of the SCBA was discussed at length in a purported Chambers Allotment Committee Meeting held on 15/03/2018 and several recommendations made by the SCBA were accepted by the said Committee. This was communicated by the SCBA to its members vide a Circular No. SCBA/Cha.Allot./2018/1061 dated 15/03/2018. Inter alia, the recommendations accepted by the Committee were as follows: i. Calendar Year now will be January to December instead of June to May. ii. The period of eligibility for filing/appearances shall be from to 31 st December 2017 (Two consecutive years). True copy of the Circular No. SCBA/Cha.Allot./2018/1061 dated 15/03/2018issued by the Hony. Secretary, S.C.B.A. (Regd.,) is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P-5(Page Nos. ) 12. The petitioner was on the verge of making his application under the AOR category, but was advised and thought it prudent to wait for the revised notice of the Supreme Court, incorporating the abovementioned changes, before doing so.

7 13. The Supreme Court, Administration General Branch, vide its Notice no. F. No. 201A/Appln/2018/SC(AG) dated 16/05/2018, published on its website a Revised Notice for inviting applications for allotment of Lawyers chambers. The eligibility criteria for the category Advocates-on-Record as stated therein is as follows: (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 nonconsecutive years between 01/06/2011 and 30/06/2011 provided the Advocate/Applicant concerned availing the option of filing during two nonconsecutive 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). The last date for filling up the online applications as per the said notice is 31/07/ Thus, despite the changes purportedly accepted by the Chambers Allotment Committee, the cut-off date remains unchanged and is 30/06/2016 and the reckoning year remains June to May. True copy of the Notice No. F. No. 201A/Appln/2018/SC (AG) dated 16/05/2018 issued by the Additional Registrar (AG) is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P-6(Page Nos. ) 15. In the previous years when this Hon ble Court has invited applications for allotment of Lawyers Chambers, in 1995, 2001 and

8 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. 16. The petitioner has filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the CPIO of this Hon ble Court, seeking information as to the eligibility criteria for allotment of lawyers chambers in the previous years. The petitioner has also sought for the minutes of the meeting of the Chambers Allotment Committee held on 15/03/2018. True copy of the RTI Application dated submitted by the petitioner to the Additional Registrar, Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Supreme Court of India is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P-7. (Page Nos. ) 17. The petitioner is aggrieved by, and seeks to challenge the said Revised Notice dated 16/05/2018, in the present writ petition as in the purported meeting of the Chambers Allotment Committee which was held on 15/03/2018, it had been accepted that the Calendar Year would be January to December instead of June to May. Further, that the period of eligibility for filing/appearances shall be from to (Two consecutive years). The same is clearly stated in the Circular of SCBA dated 15/03/2018. However, shockingly, the said changes which were accepted, do not find any mention or place in the impugned revised Notice dated 16/05/2018, and the cut-off date for determining the eligibility criteria for the AOR category remains unchanged and remains 30/06/2016.

9 18. The said cut-off date of 30/06/2016 is violative of the petitioner s fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 19. Reckoning of the Calendar year from June to May instead of January to December is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, especially in light of the fact that in the previous years when applications for allotment of lawyers chambers have been invited by this Hon ble Court, the Calendar Year has been reckoned to be from January to December. In the absence of any rationale and/or lacunae in the established practice of reckoning the calendar year from January to December, reckoning of the calendar year from June to May under the impugned Notice clearly suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. 20. Further, the cut-off date of 30/06/2016 for determining the eligibility, for applications that are to be submitted by 31/07/2018, suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. It makes a differentiation between an Advocate who became an AOR in the year 2014 or prior to that, from an Advocate who became an AOR after 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 till 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

10 he has the requisite number of filings (20 cases per annum for the two consecutive years 2016 and 2017) as the period of reckoning of the two consecutive years for him ends on 30/06/2016 as per the impugned Notice, despite him having practiced an AOR of this Court for two consecutive years (2016 and 2017) as on the date of submission of the application. The petitioner falls under this category of AORs. 21. It is humbly submitted that such differentiation is not a reasonable classification. Firstly, there is no intelligible differentia between an Advocate who became an AOR in the year 2014, and one who became an AOR in the year 2015 or 2016, if the criteria of 20 filings per year is met by both. Both the categories of Advocates have been AORs for two consecutive years prior to the date of submission of the application for allotment of lawyers chambers. This grouping, which has been created by the cut-off date of 30/06/2016, has no rational relation with the object sought to be achieved by the impugned Notice, which is determining the eligibility criteria of Advocates who can apply under the AOR category in the year This artificial division of a homogenous class of Advocates, who have been AORs of this Court for two consecutive years, and have 20 filings per annum, between those who became AORs in or before 2014, and those who became AORs in 2015 or 2016, is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and liable to be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 23. There is no rationale for fixing the cut-off date for determining eligibility as 30/06/2016, when in previous years when applications

11 for allotment of lawyers chambers have been invited, the cut-off date has been of December, and when the date of submission is 31/07/2018. The cut-off date, which is more than two years prior to the date of submission, seems to be wide off the reasonable mark and is clearly erratic, arbitrary and whimsical in the circumstances. 24. 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. In this regard, it is pertinent that the allotment of chambers to applicants is made in the order of first four vacancies to be allotted to AORs, the fifth vacancy to non-aor, and so on. 25. Being thus aggrieved, the present Writ Petition is being filed on the following amongst other grounds: GROUNDS: A. BECAUSE the different categorization brought about by the cutoff date of 30/06/2016 between a homogenous class of Advocates who have been AORs of this Court for two consecutive years and have 20 filings per annum, between those who became AORs in or before 2014, and those who became AORs in 2015 or 2016, is irrational and cannot be called reasonable classification founded on intelligible differentia

12 having nexus to any object sought to be achieved by the Allotment of Lawyers Chambers Rules and/or by the impugned notice itself, and as such is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and liable to be struck down as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. B. BECAUSE the impugned Notice operates unequally between equally footed Advocates, who have been AORs of this Court for two consecutive years and have 20 filings per annum. C. BECAUSE the petitioner, would suffer great prejudice and injustice due to such whimsical selection of the cut-off date of 30/06/2016 as he would be compelled to apply under the Non- Advocate-On-Record category, despite being an AOR for more than two consecutive years and having filed a minimum of 20 cases per annum for two consecutive years as on date. D. BECAUSE reckoning of the Calendar year from June to May instead of January to December is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, especially in light of the fact that in the previous years when applications for allotment of lawyers chambers have been invited by this Hon ble Court, the Calendar Year has been reckoned to be from January to December. E. BECAUSE in the absence of any rationale and/or lacunae in the established practice of reckoning the calendar year from January to December, reckoning of the calendar year from June to May under the impugned Notice clearly suffers from the vice of arbitrariness.

13 F. BECAUSE the cut-off date, which is more than two years prior to the date of submission, seems to be wide off the reasonable mark and is clearly erratic, arbitrary and whimsical in the circumstances. G. BECAUSE despite the purported acceptance by the Chambers Allotment Committee that the Calendar Year would be January to December instead of June to May and that the period of eligibility for filing/appearances shall be from to (Two consecutive years), shockingly, the said changes which were accepted, do not find any mention or place in the impugned revised Notice dated 16/05/2018, and the cutoff date for determining the eligibility criteria for the AOR category remains unchanged and remains 30/06/ The Petitioner states that he has no other alternative equally efficacious remedy except by means of the present petition. 27. The Petitioner submits that this Hon ble Court has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition and adjudicate upon the issues arising therefrom. 28. The Petitioner has not filed any other Writ Petition before this Hon ble Court or any other Court dealing with the subject matter of this petition. 29. The present writ petition is moved bonafide and in the interest of justice. PRAYER

14 In the facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon ble Court may graciously be pleased to; (a) pass appropriate writ, order or direction, including the writ of certiorari, directing the Respondent No. 1 that the impugned Revised Notice no. F. No. 201A/Appln/2018/SC(AG) dated 16/05/2018 be modified such that the Calendar Year be January to December, instead of June to May, and the cut off period of eligibility for filing/appearances be 31st December 2017, instead of 30 th June 2016, for the purpose of application for allotment of Lawyers Chambers by the Supreme Court of India. (b) pass such other or further order[s] as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. DRAWN & FILED BY DRAWN ON : FILED ON : (ANIRUDH SANGANERIA) PETITIONER-IN-PERSON