Proper Notification Of Lawyers' Chamber Vacancies Essential To Ensure Fairness & Transparency: Delhi High Court

The Court was addressing a plea from a lawyer contesting the decision of the Chamber Allotment Committee at Saket District Courts regarding the re-allotment of a double-occupancy chamber.

A Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula said, “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.”

Senior Advocate Puneet Mittal appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma appeared for the Respondents.

The petitioner argued that the chamber in question was allocated to two lawyers without giving her due consideration, despite her application for the same space. The Court noted that there are currently no specific rules or guidelines governing the exchange of chambers, placing significant discretion in the hands of the Allotment Committee.

The Court underscored that principles of fairness and transparency require that any vacancies be officially announced to allow all eligible members of the bar a fair chance to apply. He pointed out that the two advocates who received the allotment were aware of the chamber's vacancy and had proactively submitted requests for its exchange. This prior knowledge indicated a lack of transparency in the allotment process, as the vacancy was not advertised broadly for all interested lawyers.

The Court rejected the argument that the impending vacancy was "common knowledge" among the legal community, asserting that general assumptions cannot replace a formal and transparent process. The Court added, “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.”

Although the Court did not find sufficient grounds to overturn the allotment granted to the two lawyers, it urged the Allotment Committee to address the concerns raised and ensure that future vacancies are transparently notified to all members of the bar. This approach would help maintain fairness and mitigate similar disputes in the future.

The Court also noted that no other lawyers, potentially with more seniority than the recipients of the allotment, have come forward to contest the decision. The Court said, “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.”

Cause Title: Anita Gupta Sharma v. Chamber Allotment Committee & Ors., [2024:DHC:8002]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Puneet Mittal, Advocates Rajeev Kumar Sharma, Dharam Vir, Rahul Gupta, R. P. Singh and Sameer Vatts

Respondents: Advocates Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma, Devender Kumar, Naresh Kumar, Vidhi Gupta, Kiran Sharma, Rajesh Kumar Passey, Satyakam, Harsh Kumar Singh