SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION Vs B.D. KAUSHIK
Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR,J. CHELAMESWAR
Case number: C.A. No.-003401-003401 / 2003
Diary number: 7644 / 2003
Advocates: RAJESH AGGARWAL Vs
DINESH KUMAR GARG
Page 1
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A.NO.6
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3401 OF 2003 & 3402 OF 2003
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
B.D. KAUSHIK ETC. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
I.A.No.6 has been filed on behalf of the
Supreme Court Bar Association and Supreme Court
Advocate-on-Record Association, through its
Secretary, Mrs. B.Sunita Rao, advocate, for
clarification and modification of the
judgment/order dated 20th July, 2012, wherein,
while considering the application filed by the
SCBA(I.A. No.5 of 2011), certain suggestions
made by the Implementation Committee had been
accepted.
Appearing in support of the said
application, copies of which have been served on
all the interested parties, including the
Page 2
2
members of the Implementation Committee,
represented by Mr. P.P. Rao and Mr. Ranjit
Kumar, learned senior advocates, Mr. Sushil
Kumar Jain, learned advocate submitted that one
omission appears to have been made in paragraph
14 of the judgment, wherein while considering
the principle of ONE BAR ONE VOTE, we had
indicated that persons who had contested
elections to the Executive Committee of any
Court annexed Bar Association, other than the
SCBA, during any of the years from 2007 to 2012,
could not be allowed to vote to elect the Office
Bearers of the SCBA on the aforesaid principle,
or to attend the General Body meetings of the
SCBA. It was further mentioned that the same
would also include a person who had cast his
vote in any election to the Executive Committee
of any Court annexed Bar Association, other than
the SCBA, for the above-mentioned years. It
has been pointed out by Mr. Jain that through
inadvertence, the Supreme Court Advocate-on-
Record Association had not been excluded,
although, it formed an integral part of the
SCBA.
The suggestion is well taken and accepted by
all the interested parties represented by
Page 3
3
learned counsel, and, accordingly, we modify
paragraph 14 of the said judgment dated 20th
July, 2012, by including the words “AND THE
SCAORA” after the words “OTHER THAN THE SCBA”
appearing at lines 3 and 4 of the paragraph and
also after the same words appearing in line 11
of the said paragraph. Let the said
paragraph be modified and read accordingly.
As far as the other prayer made on behalf of
the applicant is concerned, with regard to the
number of filings in a year, as indicated in
paragraph 9 of the judgment, we are convinced
that since all advocates and members of the
SCBA will be covered by the number of entries
into the Supreme Court High Security Zone by the
Proximity Card, the same does not require any
modification at this stage.
I.A.6 filed in the disposed of appeal(s) is
allowed to the aforesaid extent.
...................J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
...................J. (J.CHELAMESWAR)
NEW DELHI; August 16, 2012.