The Delhi High Court recently stated that vacancies for chamber allotment should be communicated to members of the Bar to ensure that all eligible lawyers have an equal opportunity to express their interest.

The court made these observations while rejecting a petition filed by Anita Gupta Sharma, who challenged the decision of the Chamber Allotment Committee of Saket District Courts concerning the re-allotment of a chamber to senior advocates without notifying the broader body of lawyers about the vacancy.

The bench presided over by Justice Sanjeev Narula while scrutinizing the present case said, "Two advocates, Respondents No. 4 and 5, were specifically aware of the vacancy and had submitted their representations requesting for exchange with Chamber No. 103. Their prior knowledge suggests a breach of transparency in the allotment process, as the vacancy was not advertised for all eligible members to apply."

While emphasizing the importance of transparency in public dealings, the court upheld the decision of the Chamber Allotment Committee, noting that the re-allotment of Chamber No. 103 was based on the seniority of the advocates. The court observed that the petitioner’s request came after the chamber had already been assigned to senior advocates.

Senior Advocate Puneet Mittal, representing Anita Gupta Sharma, argued before the bench that the Chamber Allotment Committee had arbitrarily re-allotted the chamber. He also raised health concerns regarding the petitioner and her husband, who had recently suffered a brain stroke. Mittal contended that the vacancy was not publicly notified and that the committee had bypassed established allotment procedures.

In response, Advocate N. Pradeep Sharma, representing the Chamber Allotment Committee, argued that the re-allotment process adhered to the established seniority rules. He pointed out that the chamber had been duly allotted to senior advocates Jitender Singh and Rajesh Passey, asserting that there was no violation of any rules.

In light of these considerations, the court concluded that there were no grounds to interfere with the committee’s decision, as the allotment was consistent with established procedures.

"The Court does not find sufficient reason to set aside the allotment made to Respondents No. 4 and 5. However, the Committee should take due note of the concerns raised in this petition and ensure that future vacancies are transparently notified to all members, to maintain fairness and avoid similar grievances", it added.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Anita Gupta Sharma v. Chamber Allotment Committee & or