Supreme Court Refuses to Direct Land Allotment for Lawyers’ Chambers: SCBA vs. Union of India (23 March 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 23 March 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 278

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI; Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J; Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

Can the Supreme Court compel the government to allocate specific land for lawyers’ chambers? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question, declining to issue a writ of mandamus for land allotment, emphasizing the need for administrative solutions and consultations with stakeholders. The Court underscored that while lawyers are vital to the justice system, the allocation of resources must balance the needs of all stakeholders, including litigants and court staff. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

Case Background

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) filed a writ petition seeking a directive for the Union Ministry of Urban Development to allocate land for lawyers’ chambers. The SCBA argued that the existing chamber blocks are insufficient to accommodate the growing number of advocates practicing before the Supreme Court. They requested that a 1.33-acre tract of land near the ITO, allotted to the Supreme Court, be entirely converted into a chamber block. Additionally, they sought the conversion of the entire area around the Supreme Court into a ‘Supreme Court Complex’ and the allotment of a government bungalow currently occupied by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club.

The SCBA highlighted that while the Ministry of Urban Development had allotted 12.19 acres in the erstwhile Appu Ghar Complex to the Supreme Court, only a small portion was used for a new chamber block with 234 chambers (dual occupancy for 468 lawyers). They contended that the 1.33-acre land near ITO, intended for an archival block, should be fully utilized for lawyers’ chambers, suggesting that the archives could be housed elsewhere. The SCBA asserted that its members, as an integral part of the justice delivery system, have an equal right to utilize vacant spaces allotted to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) initiated the proceedings by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a directive for the Union Ministry of Urban Development to allocate land for lawyers’ chambers. The SCBA argued that the existing chamber blocks were insufficient and that the 1.33-acre land near ITO should be entirely converted into a chamber block. The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) and the Bar Council of India (BCI) also presented their views, but they preferred that the matter be addressed on the administrative side of the Supreme Court. The Attorney General for India also supported the view that the issue should be resolved administratively.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework relevant to this case is Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The SCBA invoked this article to seek a writ of mandamus directing the government to allot land for lawyers’ chambers. Additionally, the judgment mentions Section 11A(2) of the Delhi Development Act 1957, which empowers the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs to modify the Master Plan of Delhi. The notification dated 1 February 2019, modifying the land use of the 1.33 acres to ‘Government Office’, was issued under this provision.

The Court also considered the administrative functions of the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the allocation of resources must balance the needs of various stakeholders, including lawyers, litigants, and court staff. The Court noted that these matters are not suitable for judicial resolution and should be addressed administratively.

Arguments

Arguments by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA):

• ✓ The SCBA argued that the allotment of 12.19 acres in the erstwhile Appu Ghar Complex was expedited by a petition filed by the SCBA.
• ✓ They contended that the existing chamber blocks are insufficient to meet the growing needs of lawyers practicing before the Supreme Court.
• ✓ The SCBA asserted that the 1.33-acre land near ITO, allotted for an archival block, should be entirely used for constructing lawyers’ chambers, as it is the last vacant land available near the Supreme Court.
• ✓ They argued that the archives could be housed in the Additional Building Complex, where some areas are lying vacant.
• ✓ The SCBA claimed that its members, as an integral part of the justice delivery system, have an equal right to utilize vacant spaces in lands allotted to the Supreme Court.
• ✓ They maintained that a change of land use requires judicial intervention, citing a precedent of the Court’s intervention on the issue of the electoral college for the SCBA.

Arguments by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA):

• ✓ SCAORA submitted that its members are required to maintain an office within a stipulated radius of the Supreme Court.
• ✓ They noted that 70% of the chambers in the new chamber block were allotted to Advocates on Record.
• ✓ SCAORA agreed that the matter should be taken up on the administrative side with the Supreme Court.
• ✓ They requested an opportunity to deliberate on the issue with the Building Committee of the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Bar Council of India (BCI):

• ✓ The BCI argued that it is a statutory body entrusted with regulating the legal profession.
• ✓ They stated that their existing building is inadequate to meet their needs.
• ✓ The BCI mentioned that they have to carry out disciplinary functions and all their records are lodged in a godown.
• ✓ They requested space for constructing a building complex to facilitate the discharge of their statutory functions under the Advocates Act 1961.
• ✓ However, the BCI also agreed that the matter should be taken up on the administrative side of the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Union Government:

• ✓ The Attorney General for India submitted that the issue should be taken up on the administrative side by the Supreme Court.
• ✓ The Attorney General offered to facilitate an attempt to secure the needs of the institution and its stakeholders.

SCBA’s Response to BCI:

• ✓ The SCBA questioned the locus standi of the Bar Council of India, stating that the SCBA is the recognized association representing lawyers practicing before the Supreme Court.
• ✓ They argued that the BCI, which has its own building, has no right to make submissions for asserting its own demands on land allotted to the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue before the Court was whether it should issue a writ of mandamus directing the Union Ministry of Urban Development to:

• ✓ Grant permission for the conversion of a 1.33-acre tract of land near ITO into a chamber block for lawyers.
• ✓ Convert the entire area around the Supreme Court into a ‘Supreme Court Complex’ for lawyers’ chambers and other amenities.
• ✓ Allot a government bungalow currently occupied by the Foreign Correspondents’ Club to the petitioner.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any cases or books. However, it refers to the following legal provisions:

• ✓ Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article grants the Supreme Court the power to issue writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The SCBA invoked this article to seek a writ of mandamus.
• ✓ Section 11A(2) of the Delhi Development Act 1957: This section empowers the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs to modify the Master Plan of Delhi. The notification dated 1 February 2019, modifying the land use of the 1.33 acres, was issued under this provision.

Judgment

The Supreme Court declined to grant the reliefs sought by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). The Court held that the issues raised, particularly those regarding land allotment and change of land use, are best addressed on the administrative side of the Supreme Court rather than through judicial intervention. The Court emphasized that the allocation of resources must balance the needs of all stakeholders, including lawyers, litigants, and court staff.

The Court acknowledged that while lawyers are vital to the justice system, the decision to allot land for chambers is an administrative matter that requires a holistic view, considering both present and future needs. The Court also noted that the views of the Bar, including SCAORA and BCI, would be solicited during the administrative deliberations.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• ✓ Article 32 of the Constitution of India: The Court acknowledged its power under Article 32 but declined to issue a writ of mandamus, emphasizing that the matter is administrative and not judicial.
• ✓ Section 11A(2) of the Delhi Development Act 1957: The Court noted that the modification of the Master Plan of Delhi was done under this provision, highlighting the administrative nature of the issue.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain a balance between the judicial and administrative functions of the Court. The Court emphasized that the allocation of resources, particularly land, is an administrative matter that requires a holistic view, considering the needs of all stakeholders, including lawyers, litigants, and court staff. The Court also highlighted the importance of administrative decision-making and consultation with the Bar. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the following points:

• ✓ The need to balance the needs of all stakeholders, including lawyers, litigants, and court staff.
• ✓ The importance of administrative decision-making in matters of resource allocation.
• ✓ The necessity of consultation with the Bar (SCAORA, SCBA, and BCI) in resolving such issues.
• ✓ The inappropriateness of judicial intervention in purely administrative matters.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing that the matter is best addressed through administrative channels. The Court stated:

“Administrative functioning and decision -making, which the current issue requires, cannot be moved to the judicial side.”

The Court made it clear that it was not appropriate to entertain a petition under Article 32 seeking a direction that the entirety of the land should be allotted for the construction of a chamber block for lawyers. The Court noted that:

“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 Court reiterated that the Supreme Court discharges both judicial and administrative functions and that a holistic view has to be taken on the allocation of available resources by balancing the needs of all stakeholders. The Court also stated:

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The Supreme Court will not intervene in administrative matters related to resource allocation, such as land allotment for lawyers’ chambers.
• ✓ The Court emphasizes that such matters should be resolved through administrative channels and consultation with relevant stakeholders.
• ✓ Lawyers, while vital to the justice system, do not have an exclusive right to all resources allocated to the Supreme Court.
• ✓ The Court will balance the needs of all stakeholders, including litigants and court staff, in resource allocation decisions.
• ✓ The Supreme Court will take up the issue of land allotment and other related matters on its administrative side, involving consultations with the Bar.

Directions

The Court directed that the issue of land allotment and other related matters should be addressed on the administrative side of the Supreme Court. The Court also directed that the process of decision-making should involve consultation with the Bar, including the SCAORA, SCBA, and BCI. The Court left 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.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court will not issue a writ of mandamus to direct the government to allocate specific land for lawyers’ chambers. The Court emphasized that such matters are administrative in nature and should be resolved through administrative channels, with consultations with all relevant stakeholders. This judgment reinforces the principle that the Court will not interfere in administrative matters unless there is a clear violation of law or fundamental rights. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the Court’s stance on administrative matters related to resource allocation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association, declining to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the Union Ministry of Urban Development to allot land for lawyers’ chambers. The Court emphasized that such matters are administrative in nature and should be resolved through administrative channels, with consultations with all relevant stakeholders. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of balancing the needs of all stakeholders and the separation of judicial and administrative functions.

Category

Parent Category: Constitutional Law

Child Categories:

• Article 32, Constitution of India
• Writ of Mandamus
• Administrative Law
• Section 11A, Delhi Development Act, 1957

Parent Category: Delhi Development Act, 1957

Child Categories:

• Section 11A, Delhi Development Act, 1957

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in this case?

A: The main issue was whether the Supreme Court could direct the government to allot specific land for lawyers’ chambers through a writ of mandamus.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?

A: The Supreme Court declined to issue a writ of mandamus, stating that the matter is administrative and should be resolved through administrative channels.

Q: Why did the Court refuse to intervene?

A: The Court emphasized the need to balance the needs of all stakeholders, including lawyers, litigants, and court staff. It also highlighted the importance of administrative decision-making and consultation with the Bar.

Q: What are the implications of this judgment?

A: The judgment clarifies that the Supreme Court will not intervene in administrative matters related to resource allocation and that such matters should be resolved administratively with stakeholder consultation.

Q: What is the next step for the issue of land allotment for lawyers’ chambers?

A: The Supreme Court will address the issue on its administrative side, involving consultations with the Bar (SCAORA, SCBA, and BCI).