The Supreme Court on May 19 declined to interfere with the Allahabad High Court’s decision which denied a chamber allotment to an advocate who had been convicted under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice AG Masih was hearing a plea filed by the advocate challenging the denial of a chamber at the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court by the Bar Association.
Read also: Supreme Court Directs Tamil Nadu to Identify Agama Temples, Allows Priest Appointments in Non-Agama
“It is not necessary for the advocate to have a chamber inside the court. You can have a chamber outside the court too,” remarked CJI Gavai while dismissing the petition.
Advocate Preetika Dwivedi, appearing for the High Court, informed the bench that the petitioner had made “serious allegations against the then Chief Justice of India and nine other judges” and was subsequently convicted for contempt. She emphasized that under the chamber allotment guidelines, “an advocate convicted for contempt of court is not eligible for allotment.”
Dwivedi also clarified that chamber allotment is a facility provided by the High Court, not a legal right. She added that the petitioner did not meet the required number of appearances, and over 500 applicants were already on the waiting list.
Read also: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking FIR Against Justice Yashwant Varma, Directs Petitioners
On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner argued that the advocate had appeared in nearly 1,600 cases, and this ground was not considered before the High Court.
The petitioner had approached the Allahabad High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging Clause (4)(vii) of the Chamber Allotment Guidelines and the rejection list dated July 4, 2023.
Clause (4)(vii) clearly states:
“An Advocate against whom proceedings have been initiated and culminated into conviction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, shall not be eligible for allotment of Chamber.”
The High Court rejected the plea on the following grounds:
- The petitioner himself disclosed his conviction during the application, and thus cannot challenge the same guidelines now.
- The petition was filed 16 months after the notification regarding chamber vacancies, dated May 31, 2022.
- The petitioner’s case falls squarely under Clause (4)(vii), and chamber allotment cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
Read also: Supreme Court Directs Tamil Nadu to Identify Agama Temples, Allows Priest Appointments in Non-Agama
The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s decision and dismissed the plea, upholding that the eligibility rules and timelines were clear and binding.
Case Details : CHANDRA BHUSHAN PANDEY Versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AND ORS.SLP(C) No. 017588 - / 2024
