On Monday, Bulandshahr’s District and Sessions court complex turned into the site of a violent clash. Two lawyers sustained gunshot wounds to their legs after a dispute over chamber allotment escalated into gunfire. The duo was arrested shortly after the incident.
The dispute may seem unusual but at its core is a problem of space within the legal fraternity — lack of an exclusive workplace.
Across Delhi’s district courts, thousands of young lawyers — many of them first-generation entrants without family networks — are competing for a tiny pool of chambers that often remain locked within legal families for decades.
With clients equating chambers with credibility, many junior advocates said the absence of office space keeps them trapped on the margins of the profession, forcing them to conduct meetings in noisy corridors or crowded court canteens. One lawyer has even taken the fight for a chamber to court.
Ramey Krishan Rana, a first-generation independent lawyer, said, “The very first thing a client asks is: ‘Waqeel sahab, aapka chamber kidhar hai? (Where is your chamber?)… A chamber gives a lawyer credibility, stability, and identity in the eyes of society.”
For him, being allotted a chamber is a “far-fetched dream”. “… the allocation of chambers is neither fair nor transparent… they are available on rent often at extremely high rents… and getting one is based on seniority, years of membership…,” he claimed.
Another first-generation advocate Amit Rohilla, who lives in Dwarka and practices across trial courts in Delhi and in the High Court, said he spends four hours a day commuting on average. “Sometimes, instead of focusing on legal work, a major part of the day goes into planning logistics… a chamber would also reduce unnecessary travel,” he said.
Another first-generation advocate Amit Rohilla, who lives in Dwarka and practices across trial courts in Delhi and in the High Court, said he spends four hours a day commuting on average. (Express Photo)
According to data from the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), the city has nearly 1.7 lakh registered advocates. Between 2015 and 2025 alone, Delhi saw an influx of roughly 1 lakh new lawyers.
But there are only about 8,000 chambers across all lower court complexes.
Tis Hazari, Delhi’s oldest court, holds the lion’s share with 4,500 chambers for 12,000 lawyers registered with the Bar Association. The daily footfall in the court is close to 40,000.
Rohini Court has 13,000 lawyers competing for just 400 chambers. Karkardooma Court has 800 chambers for 16,000 lawyers, and Saket Court has 700 chambers for 10,000 lawyers. Dwarka Court has 345 chambers for 8,000 lawyers.
Patiala House, which sees around 10,000 lawyers practice daily, has just 1,000 chambers.
Rouse Avenue Court, which primarily handles high-profile cases involving parliamentarians, has no chambers at the moment. Under a plan formulated by the Delhi government, Rouse will get an additional 94 courtrooms, along with 90 lawyers’ chambers and 180 sitting spaces for lawyers in halls.
Rudra Vikram Singh, an engineer-turned-lawyer and President of the First Generation Lawyers Association, has taken the fight to the Delhi High Court. His PIL, filed last November, challenged Rule 5-A of the Delhi High Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules, 1980.
The rule allows for “hereditary” allotment: if a lawyer passes away or leaves practice, their chamber is automatically passed to their spouse or children. Singh, who serves as a legal advisor to several union ministries, argued that this violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
His plea stated that the “family-based allotment system has no rational connection to professional requirement or merit” and “undermines equality and equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution”.
Ramey Krishan Rana, a first-generation independent lawyer. (Express Photo)
A counter affidavit was filed by the Delhi HC, by a counsel, in February this year.
It stated that Rule 5A was added in December 2008 after proper evaluation and consideration by the Chamber Allotment Committee. It was also stated that district courts have similar provisions for allotments of chambers.
“Rule 3A makes it abundantly clear that no advocate is entitled to the allotment of more than one chamber… thereby ensuring equitable distribution of chambers and affording a fair and equal opportunity to all Advocates awaiting allotment,” the affidavit read.
It also said the Rules (5A and 3A) do not suffer from any “arbitrariness” and that “present writ petition is misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed”.
The case will now be heard on August 21.
