Vacancies Of Lawyers' Chambers Must Be Notified To All Members To Avoid Arbitrariness: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has recently observed that the vacancies regarding lawyers' chambers must be notified to the lawyers to ensure that every eligible advocate gets an equal opportunity to express interest.
“Ideally, such vacancies should be notified to the members of the Bar, providing every eligible lawyer with an equal opportunity to express interest; failure to do so creates an appearance of opacity in the process, potentially leading to an impression of arbitrariness,” Justice Sanjeev Narula said.
The Court was dealing with a lawyer's plea challenging the decision of Chamber Allotment Committee of Saket District Courts regarding the re-allotment of a Chamber on a double-occupancy basis within the Saket Court Lawyers Chamber Block.
The petitioner, Anita Gupta Sharma, claimed that the Chamber in question was re-allotted to two lawyers without due consideration of her application.
The Court noted that there are no specific rules or guidelines to govern the process for exchange of chambers, leaving the matter largely at the discretion of the Allotment Committee.
However, it adde that principles of transparency and fairness demand that any vacancy should be duly notified to allow all eligible members giving them a fair chance to apply.
Justice Narula observed that the two advocates were specifically aware of the vacancy of the Chamber and had submitted their representations requesting for exchange. The Court said that their prior knowledge suggested a “breach of transparency in the allotment process” as the vacancy was not advertised for all eligible members to apply.
“While Mr. Sharma's assertion that the impending vacancy was “common knowledge among the legal fraternity” might hold some weight, this Court is not impressed by such an argument. General assumptions about knowledge within professional circles cannot substitute for a formal, transparent process. Transparency in public dealings—even within professional bodies—is not merely a matter of custom but a principle of fair and reasonable conduct that must be upheld,” the Court said.
While the Court found no reason to set aside the allotment made to the two lawyers, it said that the Allotment Committee should take due note of the concerns raised in the matter and ensure that future vacancies are transparently notified to all members, to maintain fairness and avoid similar grievances.
“Moreover, while the failure to notify the vacancy raises concerns, it is equally significant that no other lawyers—potentially more senior than Respondents No. 4 and 5—have come forward to challenge the allotment. This suggests that even if the vacancy had been notified, the outcome might not have materially changed,” the Court said.
Title: ANITA GUPTA SHARMA v. CHAMBER ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE & OTHERS