Delhi High Court Asks Portfolio Committees To Review NCR Residency Condition For District Court Chamber Allotments

The Delhi High Court has asked its Portfolio Committees to consider whether advocates residing in the National Capital Region (NCR) should alone be eligible for the allotment of chambers in Delhi District Courts.

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging eligibility conditions in the allotment rules for the Shahdara/Karkardooma, Dwarka, and Rohini Courts. The petitioner argued that these rules currently restrict eligibility only to members who are residents of the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi, unfairly excluding those living in neighbouring NCR areas.

The Division Bench of Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora ordered, "Suffice to state that in view of the submission made by Mr. Vashishth to which Mr. Malhotra agrees, the issue which has been raised in the petition be considered by the Portfolio Committees of this Court relating to the above District Courts and a decision thereof be taken. The decision so taken should be communicated to the petitioner."

Advocate Rajat Malhotra appeared for the Petitioner, while Standing Counsel Sameer Vashisht appeared for the Respondents.

The petition, inter alia, prayed, "Writ petition may kindly be accepted with costs throughout, and writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ, thereby quashing and setting aside the residence-based eligibility condition restricting consideration for allotment of lawyers’ chambers only to advocates residing within the National Capital Territory of Delhi, and directing the Respondents to recognise eligibility on the basis of residence within the National Capital Region in accordance with the constitutional framework governing allotment of lawyers’ chambers."

Further sought directions to the Respondents to suitably amend, harmonise and implement the District Courts Shahdara/Karkardooma Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, 1995, the District Courts Dwarka Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, 2009 and the Rohini District Courts Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, 2011, so as to ensure that the territorial eligibility and other governing conditions contained therein are brought in conformity with, and made consistent with, the amended Delhi High Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment & Occupancy) Rules, 1980, thereby establishing a uniform, transparent and constitutionally compliant framework for allotment of lawyers’ chambers across all District Court complexes functioning under the administrative control of the Delhi High Court.

During the proceedings, the counsel for the respondents highlighted the Supreme Court's judgment in Gopal Jha v. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (2019), which addressed similar residency restrictions. In that case, the apex court observed that the exponential growth of Delhi has forced many practitioners to shift to nearby areas like Noida, Ghaziabad, Faridabad, or Gurugram. The Supreme Court had noted that some of these NCR locations are closer to the courts than parts of Delhi itself, suggesting that a strict residency requirement may have lost its rationality. That ruling concluded that Judges' Allotment Committees should reconsider these rules, potentially by fixing a radial distance from the court rather than adhering to strict political boundaries.

The Court said, "His submissions is that appropriate shall be the issue which has been raised by the petitioner in this petition be referred to the Portfolio Committee of the High Court through the learned Registrar General of this Court, relating to the concerned District Courts i.e., Shahadra/Karkardooma, Dwarka and Rohini Courts for a decision...In fact, Mr. Rajat Malhotra, agrees with the submission made by Mr. Vashishth...Mr. Malhotra also draws our attention to the Rules of allotment of the lawyers chambers in respect of the Supreme Court to state the same include the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association residing at Noida, Greater Noida, Faridabad and Gurugram can also apply for allotment of chambers."

The Court ordered that the issue be referred to the Portfolio Committees of the High Court associated with the concerned District Courts. Both parties agreed that the Portfolio Committees should consider whether the eligibility criteria need revision in light of the modern geographical realities of the legal profession.

The Court directed that a decision be taken by these committees and subsequently communicated to the Petitioner, effectively disposing of the writ petition and any pending applications.

Cause Title: Sh Piyush Gupta Advocate v. The Chamber Allotment Committee and Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1629-DB]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Rajat Malhotra, Advocate Sudhanshu Sharma, Advocate Saksham Bansal, Advocate Kamayni Tripathi, Advocate Yamini Bansal.

Respondents: Standing Counsel (Civil) Sameer Vashisht, Advocate Harshita Nathrani, Advocate Khushboo Mittal.

Click here to read/download the Order