Is (SCAORA) Rule 7B creating heritable rights in SC


The Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association (SCAROA) Rule 7B has been creating a lot of debate in India when it comes to the issue of heritable rights. The rule was issued in 2016 and it outlines the rights of the members of the association and the rights of the members’ heirs. The rule has been controversial due to its implications on chamber inheritance law in India.

It is a dream of almost every law student & law practitioner to get a chamber/cabin at the prime premises of the Supreme Court. Having a cabin/ chamber at such a prime location is a boon itself because this prime location comes with prime clients, exposure, fame/prestige & of course monetary benefits. The immense growth opportunity/credibility offered by these chambers in this posh location is what makes these cabins/chambers a precious asset for every legal practitioner and necessitates the SC Lawyers chamber rules, which established precise standards for distributing these scarce chambers among lawyers.

These SC Lawyers’ Chambers Rules are quite simple, sorted & justified except for Rule 7B, let’s have a quick look at these rules before analysing Rule 7B and pointing out its loopholes.

SUPREME COURT ALLOTMENT OF LAWYERS’ CHAMBER RULE (As amended up to 20th November 2018)

  1. These Rules shall be called Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules).
  2. These Chambers shall be allotted among advocates by a committee authorized by CJI. These allocations are finalized by CJI.
  3. Chambers are allotted among those advocates who are part of the Supreme Court Bar Association & frequently practice in the Supreme Court and to those who live in Delhi, Faridabad, Gurugram & Noida.
  4. The following sequence is followed by the authorized committee for allotting chambers among advocates:-The first four openings are filled by Advocates-on-Record who frequently practice in SC. The fifth opening is available for Non-Advocates-on-Record who primarily practice in the SC & live in Delhi, Ghaziabad, Faridabad, Gurugram & Noda. The sixth, seventh, and eighth openings are for Advocates-on-Record, the ninth will be for Non-Advocates-on-Record, and the tenth will be for Senior Advocates and the cycle will continue in the manner stated above.
  5. The allottee is required to submit a security deposit of Rs. 4,000 or such other amount as may be determined from time to time at the time of chamber/cabin allocation. The sum must be paid in cash or by demand draft drawn on a local bank in the name of the Deputy Registrar, Supreme Court of India. As soon as an allocation is approved, the specified sum is credited to the government account as a security deposit.
  6. The bigger chambers in the old & new Lawyers’ Chambers building are allotted to two or more advocates jointly. For instance, if two advocates share a single chamber, each advocate is individually responsible for the payment of the license fee, and other utility expenses. However, if there are more than two advocates in a chamber, they shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of license fees and utility charges. However, if the allocation for any one of the joint allottee is cancelled or terminated under the Lawyer’s chambers rules, then another advocate from the approved panel will be allocated the corresponding section of the chamber solely based on seniority.
  7. An Advocate having a full chamber in the old chamber building, if wished so, may share his chamber with another advocate from the approved panel.

7A. Advocates who qualify for allotment and whose spouses are currently occupying a full chamber or a portion of one in the High Court or the old lawyers’ chambers building will receive a cabin measuring 6.21 square metres in place of a complete chamber.

An advocate who already has a chamber assigned to him or her in the Delhi High Court may be given a chamber/cabin in the Supreme Court, but only under the condition that he or she surrender the chamber assigned to them in the Delhi High Court. If the husband or wife already has a full chamber assigned to them, they are not eligible for a new allotment.


As per this Rule the chamber of deceased advocate shall be allotted to his or her son/daughter/spouse, if he or she is a practicing in the Supreme Court.

Loopholes of RULE 7B

“The Lawyers Chambers are owned by the Supreme Court of India and are public property. No  Advocates own these chambers, they only get a license for using it for a specific period[1] Issue here is whether a license to use general property can be bequeathed or not?

As per the (SC notice issued on October 31, 2017), the minimum number of appearances as well as seniority criteria shall be considered for allotment of the chamber. [2]

However, The rule 7b certainly runs contrary to the above-mentioned notice of SC and enables a spouse or daughter/son of an allottee to be entitled to allotment of a chamber (in fact, retain the same chamber), irrespective of their seniority at the bar or number of appearances.

Adv. Vishnu Shankar Jain challenged the Supreme Court Bar Association(SCBA) RULE 7B, he contends that the Rule 7B is “discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution as it is violative of the rule of seniority and minimum number of appearances that is prescribed for other advocates”, and also contravened the principle of a level playing field for professional advocates who otherwise satisfy the relevant criteria, thereby violating their rights under Article 14 and Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Relying on Article 39, he said Rule 7B creates a personal heritable right in a general property & hence results in a concentration of material resources to the detriment of all

So it’s quite certain that Rule 7B is indeed unconstitutional and needs to be amended. So that every law practitioner gets a fair chance to license these prized chambers of SC.

Rule 7B has caused a stir in the legal circles in India. Some argue that the rule is in conformity with the traditional inheritance laws, which state that the property of the deceased must be allotted to the surviving heirs and if this rule is stuck down, then it will be a violation of the fundamental right to life and liberty of the heirs as they are not allowed to use the deceased’s property.


Getting a chamber/cabin at SC prime premises is like getting a diamond in the coal mine. The debate on the SCAROA Rule 7B has been ongoing for some time now, and it does not seem to be coming to a conclusion soon. There are those who are for the rule, and those who are against it. Overall, it can be said that the rule has its pros and cons, and the final verdict on the rule is yet to be seen. The rule has implications for chamber inheritance law in India. The SC must see that Rule 7B is creating a heritable loop and putting additional difficulty on first-generation lawyers in the Supreme Court. This issue should be addressed or else all these chambers soon be acquired by their descendants and no chamber/cabin will be vacant to assign to eligible candidates. In nutshell, It will be interesting to see how the rule will be interpreted by the Supreme Court in the future.

Author(s) Name: Ritik Kumar (Law centre 1, Faculty of law, University of Delhi)


[1] Bhalla, Vineet. “Rules of Inheritance: Supreme Court Chamber Allotment.” Spontaneous Order, 6 August 2018, Accessed 23 January 2023.

[2] SC notice issued on October 31, 2017. “SC notice issued on October 31, 2017.” Supreme Court of India, 31 October 2017, Accessed 23 January 2023.

error: Content is protected !!