Supreme Court Bar Association Versus Ministry of Urban Development & Ors.

Supreme Court Bar Association  Versus Ministry of Urban Development & Ors.  

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (C) No 640 of 2022
Supreme Court Bar Association …Petitioner
Versus
Ministry of Urban Development & Ors. …Respondents
And With
Writ Petition (C) No 817 of 2022
2
J U D G M E N T
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI
1. The Supreme Court Bar Association1 has invoked the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus directing the
Union Ministry of Urban Development to
(i) grant permission for the conversion into a chamber block for lawyers of
an entire tract of land admeasuring 1.33 acres situated near the ITO,
which has been allotted to the Supreme Court;
(ii) convert the entire area around the Supreme Court as ‘a Supreme Court
Complex’ so that all the buildings across the Supreme Court on Bhagwan
Das Road including the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of South Asia,
Indian Law Institute and Indian Society of International Law can be
utilized for conversion into chambers or for being redeveloped as a
chamber block / for activities of the Supreme Court or for any other
amenities for lawyers; and
(iii) allot a government bungalow which is presently being occupied by the
Foreign Correspondents’ Club to the petitioner.
2. According to the petitioner, the number of advocates practicing before the
Supreme Court has increased manifold in recent years and the existing chamber
blocks are insufficient to accommodate the growing needs of lawyers eligible for
1 “SCBA”
3
allotment. According to the petitioner, an area admeasuring 12.19 acres in the
erstwhile Appu Ghar Complex was allotted to the Supreme Court by the Ministry
of Urban Development of which a small portion has been utilized for the
construction of a new chamber block for advocates practicing before the Supreme
Court. In the new chamber block for lawyers, 234 chambers have been constructed
which are now allotted on a dual occupancy to accommodate 468 lawyers.
3. The petitioner asserts that out of a total area of 1.33 acres allotted to the
Supreme Court by the Union Government near ITO for the construction of an
archival block, only 0.50 acres has been earmarked for a chamber block for
lawyers. According to the petitioner, only four to five hundred chambers can be
constructed in the said area. Since the land admeasuring 1.33 acres is ‘the last
piece of vacant land available near the Supreme Court’, the petitioner submits that
it should be entirely utilized for constructing chamber blocks for lawyers.
4. According to the petitioner, the archives of the Supreme Court can be
housed in the Additional Building Complex where some areas are lying vacant. The
petitioner submits that they have an equal right to utilize vacant spaces in lands
allotted to the Supreme Court as its members are an integral part of the justice
delivery system.
5. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr Vikas Singh, learned senior
counsel submitted that:
(i) The allotment of 12.19 acres in the erstwhile Appu Ghar Complex by the
Ministry of Urban Development to the Supreme Court was expedited by
the institution of a petition on the judicial side by the SCBA;
4
(ii) After the Additional Building Complex was constructed in 2018-19, a
small segment has been utilized for the construction of a chamber block
for lawyers in which 234 chambers have been constructed allowing for
an occupancy of 468 lawyers;
(iii) The Additional Registrar of the Supreme Court informed the SCBA that
0.50 acres out of 1.33 acres of land have been earmarked for
construction of a lawyers’ chamber block, subject to a change of use.
Since only four to five hundred chambers can be constructed on the land
which has been earmarked, the entirety should be utilized for the
construction of chambers for lawyers who are an integral part of the
justice delivery system; and
(iv) A petition under Article 32 is maintainable because a change of land use
requires judicial intervention and also bearing in mind the precedent of
this Court’s intervention on the issue of the electoral college for the
SCBA.
6. Ms Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association2 submits that the members of
the Association are required by the Rules governing their practice as Advocates
on Record to maintain an office within a stipulated radius of the Supreme Court.
Learned senior counsel submitted that in the newly constructed chamber block in
the Additional Building Complex, approximately 70 percent of the chambers have
been allotted to Advocates on Record (the remaining 10 percent being allotted to
2 “SCAORA”
5
Senior Advocates and 20 percent to other Advocates). While emphasizing the
needs of the Advocates on Record, Ms Arora submitted that this is a matter which
SCAORA is agreeable to being taken up on the administrative side with the
Supreme Court. Learned senior counsel further submitted that at that stage, it
would be desirable if an opportunity is granted to SCAORA to deliberate on the
issue with the Building Committee of the Supreme Court.
7. Mr Manan Kumar Mishra, Mr S Prabhakaran, and Mr Debi Prasad Dhal, all
learned senior counsel, appeared on behalf of the Bar Council of India.
8. Mr Manan Kumar Mishra who is also the Chairperson of the Bar Council of
India urged that (i) the Bar Council of India is a statutory body entrusted with duties
and functions to regulate the legal profession; (ii) though the Bar Council has a
building of its own, situated in proximity to the Supreme Court, it is inadequate to
meet its needs; (iii) the Bar Council of India has to carry out disciplinary functions
and all its records are lodged in a godown; (iv) hence the space should be allotted
to the Bar Council of India for the construction of a building complex which would
facilitate the discharge of its statutory functions under the Advocates Act 1961. Mr
Manan Kumar Mishra, Mr S Prabhakaran and Mr Debi Prasad Dhal, learned senior
counsel have, however, joined in stating that this is a matter which should be taken
up only on the administrative side and the Bar Council would be content with such
decision as may be taken by the Supreme Court to accommodate its reasonable
needs.
9. Mr R Venkataramani, learned Attorney General appeared on behalf of the
Union Government. The Attorney General has submitted that the issue should be
6
taken up on the administrative side by the Supreme Court and that in his own
capacity, he will facilitate an attempt to secure the needs of the institution and of
its stakeholders.
10. Mr Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the SCBA
has questioned the locus of the Bar Council of India in these proceedings, stating
that SCBA is the recognized association representing lawyers practicing before the
Supreme Court. Hence, according to him, the Bar Council, which has a building of
its own, has no locus standi to make any submissions for asserting its own
demands in the land which has been allotted to the Supreme Court.
11. On 12 September 2022, this Court issued notice with respect to the relief
sought in prayer (a) of the petition seeking the conversion of the land admeasuring
1.33 acres for a chamber block for lawyers.
12. The written submission which has been filed in these proceedings by the
Secretary General of the Supreme Court of India sets out the background of the
allotment of land admeasuring 1.33 acres. On 21 August 2017, pursuant to a
request by the Registrar (Administration) of the Supreme Court, the Union Ministry
of the Housing and Urban Affairs conveyed the sanction of the President of India
for the allotment of the land for the specific purpose of setting up of the Supreme
Court Archives. On 27 August 2018, the Additional Registrar of the Supreme Court
informed the SCBA of the decision to earmark 0.50 acres out of the land for the
purpose of constructing lawyers’ chambers. By a notification dated 1 February
2019, the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs modified the Master Plan of
Delhi - 2021 in exercise of powers under Section 11A(2) of the Delhi Development
7
Act 1957 by which the land use of the land located in Planning Zone-3 was changed
to ‘Government Office’.
13. The Secretary General also submitted that the decision to use the land for
the Supreme Court Archives as well as the decision to allocate 0.5 acres of the
land for construction of lawyers’ chambers is in accordance with the direction of
the then Chief Justice of India and the matter regarding the development of the
land is pending consideration before the Judges Committee. The Secretary
General has submitted that the suggestion of the petitioner that the Supreme Court
Archives be re-shifted to Blocks ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the Additional Building Complex or
the Annexe Building cannot be accepted as the space available in those locations
is inadequate. It has been submitted that the decision to earmark 0.5 acres for the
construction of lawyers’ chambers was taken after careful deliberation bearing in
mind that a chamber block has also been recently constructed in the Additional
Building Complex for members of the Bar.
14. During the course of the deliberations at the oral hearing, the Bench has
indicated that it is fully cognizant of the needs of the lawyers appearing before the
Supreme Court who are vital stakeholders in the administration of justice.
Moreover, it was also noted during the course of the dialogue that the litigants are
stakeholders as well and while creating or upgrading the existing amenities, the
interest and welfare of litigants has to be duly recognized and protected.
15. The narration of submissions would indicate that while Mr Vikas Singh,
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the SCBA has sought a resolution
of the demand raised in the petition on the judicial side, SCAORA and the Bar
8
Council of India, on the other hand, indicated that they would wish to have the issue
addressed on the administrative side so that an appropriate view can be taken by
this Court administratively after deliberation with their representatives.
16. There is no gainsaying in the fact that the members of the Bar, together with
the litigants, have an important role in the functioning of the judicial institution of
the Supreme Court. During the course of the hearing, we have abundantly
indicated to the learned senior counsel that the views of the Bar would be solicited
and deliberations will take place on the administrative side with the members of the
Associations and the Bar Council.
17. The learned Attorney General for India has, in the same manner, as
SCAORA and the Bar Council of India, indicated that the issue needs to be taken
up on the administrative side and not on the judicial side.
18. We are categorically of the view that it would not be appropriate to entertain
a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a direction that the entirety
of the land admeasuring 1.33 acres should be allotted for the construction of a
chamber block for lawyers.
19. On 27 August 2018, the Additional Registrar of the Supreme Court of India
addressed a communication to the Honorary Secretary of the SCBA stating that
0.50 acres out of 1.33 acres of land shall be earmarked for the construction of
lawyers’ chambers subject to a change of land use by the concerned authority. Mr
Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the SCBA urged that a direction
for the change of land use has to be adjudicated only on the judicial side. However,
this may not be a correct perception. Issues pertaining to the change of land use,
9
as indicated in the letter dated 27 August 2018, are eminently suitable for being
addressed on the administrative side.
20. SCBA cannot assert a right to the entirety of the land admeasuring 1.33
acres, which has been allotted by the Union government for housing the Supreme
Court Archives, for converting it into a chamber block for lawyers. The Supreme
Court of India discharges both judicial and administrative functions. The discharge
of its functions implicates diverse stakeholders including lawyers, litigants and the
staff engaged in activities of the Supreme Court. A holistic view has to be taken on
the allocation of available resources by balancing the needs of stakeholders both
for the present and the future. These are matters which cannot be resolved by the
application of judicial standards and have to be taken up on the administrative side
of the Supreme Court. Administrative functioning and decision-making, which the
current issue requires, cannot be moved to the judicial side.
21. Apart from prayer ‘a’ which seeks the conversion of the entirety of the land
admeasuring 1.33 acres to a chamber block for lawyers, the petitioners have also
sought the conversion of the entire area around Supreme Court as a Supreme
Court Block so that all buildings across the Supreme Court on Bhagwan Das Road
can be utilized for conversion to lawyers’ chambers. The petitioner has also sought
the allotment of a government bungalow presently occupied by the Foreign
Correspondents’ Club to the petitioner. Such directions cannot be issued on the
judicial side.
10
22. We therefore are unable to subscribe to the reliefs which have been sought
in the petition under Article 32. However, we leave it open to the Supreme Court of
India on its administrative side to take appropriate decisions bearing in mind the
needs of the institution for the present and the future and the interest of all
stakeholders. The process of decision making would also involve consultation with
the Bar. SCAORA, SCBA and BCI would be at liberty to address the issue with
their representations on the administrative side. The writ petitions shall accordingly
stand disposed of in the above terms.
……………………………………….CJI
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
………………………………………….J
[Sanjay Kishan Kaul]
………………………………………….J
 [Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha]
New Delhi;
March 23, 2023

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

Atal Pension Yojana-(APY Chart) | अटल पेंशन योजना