National

Are lawyers’ chambers inherited property, Bench asks top court

File photo: Supreme Court, New Delhi.   | Photo Credit: V.Sudershan

more-in

As per the provision, in case an allottee advocate of a prized chamber dies, his or her child or spouse, if an advocate, inherits one half of the chamber.

A Supreme Court Bench sought a response from the apex court on a petition asking whether advocates' chambers situated in prime spots within the Supreme Court complex and at vantage positions across the road from the court building are the "heritable property" of the children of practising lawyers, senior advocates and judges.

A Bench led by Justice A.K. Sikri on February 16 issued notice to the top court in a writ petition filed by the Supreme Court advocate-on-record Vishnu Shankar Jain, represented by advocate K. Parameshwar, challenging the constitutional vires of Rule 7B of the Supreme Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, as amended in 2017.

As per the provision, in case an allottee advocate of a prized chamber dies, his or her child or spouse, if an advocate, inherits one half of the chamber.

The only criterion is for the Allotment Committee to check whether the child or spouse is indeed a lawyer or not.

This practice continues despite the fact that the Supreme Court had issued a notice on October 30, last year, that chamber allotments would be based on the minimum number of appearances of a prospective allottee, which would be a reflection of his or her volume of work. The court had also prescribed seniority.

"Rule 7B overrides both these criterion and enables a spouse or daughter/son of an allottee to be entitled to allotment of a chamber (in fact, retain the same chamber), irrespective of their seniority at the bar or number of appearances," the writ petition said.

The location of such chambers is a natural professional boost for lawyers, who occupy them, and their clientele.

The petition contended that Rule 7B "creates a personal heritable right in a public property/good, which leads to the concentration of material resources to the common detriment".

It submitted that Rule 7B was unconstitutional primarily because it was "patently discriminatory and violative of Article 14 (fundamental right to equality) of the Constitution as it is violative of the rule of seniority and minimum number of appearances that is prescribed for other advocates".

Post a Comment
More In National
lawyer
properties (general)
Supreme Court
Please Wait while comments are loading...
  1. Comments will be moderated by The Hindu editorial team.
  2. Comments that are abusive, personal, incendiary or irrelevant cannot be published.
  3. Please write complete sentences. Do not type comments in all capital letters, or in all lower case letters, or using abbreviated text. (example: u cannot substitute for you, d is not 'the', n is not 'and').
  4. We may remove hyperlinks within comments.
  5. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name, to avoid rejection.

Printable version | Feb 19, 2018 2:35:29 AM | http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/inheritance-of-advocates-chambers-in-sc-premises-questioned/article22790386.ece