In a judgment reinforcing the principles of transparency and fairness in lawyer chamber allotments, the Delhi High Court, through Justice Sanjeev Narula, ruled that vacancies in lawyer chambers must be publicly notified to ensure equal opportunity for all eligible advocates. The case, Anita Gupta Sharma v. Chamber Allotment Committee & Others (W.P.(C) 12611/2024), revolved around the allotment of Chamber No. 103 at Saket District Court, which the petitioner, Advocate Anita Gupta Sharma, claimed was unfairly re-allotted without proper procedure.
Case Background
Advocate Anita Gupta Sharma, represented by Senior Advocate Puneet Mittal, argued that the Chamber Allotment Committee acted arbitrarily by failing to notify the vacancy of Chamber No. 103, which she had sought due to pressing personal circumstances. Sharma, who has been practicing at the Saket District Court since its inception, contended that both she and her husband, Advocate Rajiv Kumar Sharma, were facing serious health issues, necessitating a transfer to a more accessible chamber. Despite her long-standing association with the court, the chamber was re-allotted to Respondents Jitender Singh and Rajesh Kumar Passey without consideration of her application.
The chamber in question had become available after one of the original allottees, Mr. Jagat Singh Basta, was upgraded to a single-occupancy chamber, and the other, Advocate Vinod Gupta, passed away. The petitioner claimed that her application for the chamber was not considered, despite her health-related concerns and the open vacancy.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Chamber Allotment Committee’s failure to notify the vacancy violated the principles of fairness and transparency, as enshrined in the Saket District Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, 2010. The petitioner argued that the lack of public notice deprived her of the opportunity to apply for the vacant chamber.
The respondents, represented by Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma and other counsel, countered that the chamber had been allotted according to seniority and prior applications. They maintained that the allotment process followed the internal norms and guidelines of the Bar Association, emphasizing that the petitioner’s request came only after the chamber had already been re-allotted.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Sanjeev Narula, in his ruling, acknowledged the petitioner’s concerns about the lack of transparency but also highlighted the seniority-based system of chamber allotment. The court observed:
“While the failure to notify the vacancy raises concerns, it is equally significant that no other lawyers—potentially more senior than the respondents—have come forward to challenge the allotment. This suggests that even if the vacancy had been notified, the outcome might not have materially changed.”
However, the court made it clear that proper notification of chamber vacancies is crucial for ensuring transparency and equal opportunity. It stated:
“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.”
Despite finding that the petitioner’s application was made too late to affect the outcome, the court did not set aside the allotment but directed the Chamber Allotment Committee to ensure that all future vacancies are publicly notified, allowing all eligible advocates an equal chance to apply. The court noted that public notice of such vacancies is necessary to avoid any appearance of opacity or arbitrariness in the process.
Case Details:
– Case Name: Anita Gupta Sharma v. Chamber Allotment Committee & Others
– Case No.: W.P.(C) 12611/2024
– Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula
– Petitioner’s Counsel: Senior Advocate Puneet Mittal, with Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sharma, Mr. Dharam Vir, Mr. Rahul Gupta, Mr. R. P. Singh, and Mr. Sameer Vatts.
– Respondents’ Counsel: Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma, Mr. Devender Kumar, Mr. Naresh Kumar, Ms. Vidhi Gupta, and Ms. Kiran Sharma for Respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 5 appeared in person.
