SC Refuses To Consider SCBA's Plea Seeking Land For lawyer's Chambers On Judicial Side

The Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices SK Kaul and PS Narasimha on Thursday refused to consider on the judicial side, the Supreme Court Bar Association’s plea to permute the totality of land allied to the apex court by the centre as land for chambers of lawyers. This land measures up to 1.33 acres. However the court has left it open to be decided on the administrative side.The bench said that such matters cannot be decided judicially and are open for the Supreme Court to consider it on the administrative side.

SCBA President Vikas Singh put forth before the CJI in a letter dated March 17 that the SCBA at the moment utilizes a small room adjacent to the press lounge and it is not sufficient to handle their work. It also mentioned the request of SCBA to have new auditoriums and meeting rooms.

The Chief Justice of India DY Chnadrachud said that the SCBA cannot assert a right over the entirety of l;and allotted to the Supreme Court for housing SC Archives and other purposes. He said that a holistic view has to be taken into the allocation of resources and the matter cannot be dealt with by applying judicial standards.

SCBA president Vikas Singh has repeatedly mentioned the matter before. It also became a matter of controversy when it led to confrontation between the CJI and SCBA president Vikas Singh on March 2 when the later was persistently mentioning the matter and in the process threatened to escalate the matter and even visit the CJI’s resident to get it heard. 

It was further escalated when Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Neeraj Kishan Kual apologized to the bench for the conduct of SCBA president Vikas Singh on the very same day but the executive committee of SCBA proposed to pass two resolutions against Kapil Sibal and Neeraj Kishan for making statements diverging from that of SCBA’s stand. The committee’s resolution was objected to by several advocates and a meeting that was scheduled to take place relating to this was called off by the SCBA in the light of objections.

CASE: SCBA V. MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND ORS.

WP(C) NO. 640/2022