Chamber allotment eligibility must reflect active practice; membership condition upheld, while residence requirement was left for reconsideration.

Chamber allotment eligibility was required to bear a rational nexus with current active practice before the Supreme Court, so the proposed block period from 2004 was found too remote and was modified to 01.10.2013 to 30.09.2018. The condition requiring membership of the Supreme Court Bar Association was upheld because chamber allotment is a discretionary facility, not a vested or fundamental right, and the classification was not treated as unreasonable. The residence requirement for Delhi or New Delhi was not struck down; instead, it was left for reconsideration by the chamber allotment committee in light of changed circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the block period for eligibility in the chamber allotment notice should be altered; (ii) whether the condition requiring membership of the Supreme Court Bar Association for chamber allotment is valid; (iii) whether the requirement of residence in Delhi or New Delhi for eligibility is valid.

Issue (i): whether the block period for eligibility in the chamber allotment notice should be altered.

Analysis: The eligibility window had to bear a real connection with current active practice, since chamber allotment is meant for advocates presently practising before the Supreme Court. A block period beginning from 2004 was found too remote and capable of including persons who were no longer actively practising. At the same time, the Court accepted that the existing notice needed modification because time had passed since issuance and applications had been extended.

Conclusion: The block period was modified to 01.10.2013 to 30.09.2018, and the broader request to count eligibility from 2004 was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the condition requiring membership of the Supreme Court Bar Association for chamber allotment is valid.

Analysis: Chamber allotment is a facility and not a fundamental or statutory right. The Court found that the association requirement was not discriminatory because the relevant professional body itself treated SCBA membership as a prerequisite for membership of the allied association relied on by the petitioners. The rule therefore did not create an unreasonable classification or violate the claimed constitutional guarantees.

Conclusion: The requirement of membership of the Supreme Court Bar Association was upheld.

Issue (iii): whether the requirement of residence in Delhi or New Delhi for eligibility is valid.

Analysis: In view of changed urban and commuting conditions, the Court held that the locality requirement deserved reconsideration. Instead of striking it down, the Court left the matter for examination by the chamber allotment committee, which was to take a final view after considering all relevant factors.

Conclusion: No final interference was made with the residence condition, and the matter was left for consideration by the committee.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were disposed of by partly revising the eligibility framework, upholding the association-membership condition, and leaving the residence requirement for administrative reconsideration.

Ratio Decidendi: A chamber allotment scheme may validly require present active practice and association membership as eligibility conditions, because chamber allotment is a discretionary facility rather than a vested right, but such eligibility must retain a rational nexus with the object of allotment.

---