https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278370 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. en-us Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Jan 2019 07:11:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278370 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278370