Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A.     NO.5     OF     2012   IN

I.A.     NO.1     OF     2011      IN

CIVIL     APPEAL     NOS.3401     &     3402     OF     2003   

Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors. … Appellants  Vs.

B.D. Kaushik … Respondent

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

ALTAMAS     KABIR,     J.   

1. I.A.No.5 of 2012 has been filed on behalf of  

the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) in Civil  

Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003 which were

Page 2

disposed of by this Court on 7th May, 2012, with  

various directions. In fact, this application  

arises out of the said directions.   

2. The aforesaid appeals had been filed on behalf  

of the Supreme Court Bar Association and its then  

Honorary Secretary, Mr. Ashok Arora, and Ms. Sunita  

B. Rao, Coordinator, Implementation Committee of  

the Supreme Court Bar Association, against an  

interim order passed by the Civil Judge on 5th  

April, 2003, on an application for injunction filed  

in Civil Suit Nos.100 and 101 of 2003.  In the said  

appeals various questions were raised regarding the  

administration of the Supreme Court Bar  

Association.  One of the questions raised was with  

regard to the amendment of Rule 18 of the SCBA  

Rules governing the eligibility of the members of  

the SCBA to contest the elections to be elected and  

to elect the Office Bearers of the Association.  

After an extensive hearing, the appeals were  

2

Page 3

disposed of by a detailed judgment with various  

directions, on the basis of the principle of “One  

Bar One Vote”  projected by the learned Advocates  

who appeared in the matter.   

3. While disposing of the said appeals the Hon’ble  

Judges noticed that there were many Advocates,  

admitted as members of the SCBA, who did not  

practise regularly in the Supreme Court and were  

members of other Bar Associations and that the  

majority of them made their presence felt only  

during elections for the Office Bearers of the  

SCBA.  This Court was, therefore, called upon to  

devise a mechanism by which those members of the  

SCBA who practised regularly in this Court could be  

identified as members who could be entitled to vote  

to elect the Office Bearers of the SCBA, and those  

who would not be entitled, while retaining their  

membership. After considering the matter at length,  

Their Lordships came to the conclusion that in  

3

Page 4

order to identify those advocates who practised  

regularly in the Supreme Court, the criteria  

adopted by this Court for allotment of Chambers, as  

explained in Vinay     Balchandra     Joshi   Vs. Registrar  

General     of     Supreme     Court     of     India   [(1998) 7 SCC  

461], should be adopted for the purpose of  

identifying the members who would be entitled to  

vote to elect the Office Bearers of the SCBA.  

Their Lordships, accordingly, directed that the  

criteria adopted in Vinay     Balchandra     Joshi  ’s case  

(supra), should be adopted by the SCBA and its  

Office Bearers to identify those advocates who  

practised regularly in the Supreme Court. A further  

direction was given that the Office Bearers of the  

SCBA or a small Committee to be appointed by the  

SCBA, consisting of three Senior Advocates, should  

take steps to identify the regular practitioners in  

the manner indicated in the order, and, thereafter,  

to prepare a list of members regularly practising  

in this Court and another separate list of members  

4

Page 5

not regularly practising in this Court and a third  

list of temporary members of the SCBA.  These lists  

were directed to be posted on the SCBA website and  

also on the SCBA Notice Board. It was also directed  

that a letter should be sent by the SCBA to each  

member, informing him about the status of his  

membership, on or before February 28, 2012.  Any  

aggrieved member would be entitled to make a  

representation to the Committee within 15 days from  

the date of receipt of the letter from the SCBA,  

and if a request was made to be heard in person,  

the representation was to be heard by the Committee  

and a decision thereupon was to be rendered in the  

time specified therein. The decision of the  

Committee was to be communicated to the member  

concerned and the same was to be final, conclusive  

and binding on the member of the SCBA.  Thereafter,  

a final list of advocates regularly practising in  

this Court was to be displayed by the SCBA.

5

Page 6

4. Several other directions were also given as to  

what was to be done after the final list of the  

regular practitioners was made ready and published.  

The Court also found that the amendment made in  

Rule 18 of the SCBA Rules was legal and valid and  

that no right of the Advocates had been infringed  

by such amendment.   

5. In keeping with the suggestions made on behalf  

of the SCBA and the recommendations of the Court,  

Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Mr. P.P. Rao, and Mr. Ranjit  

Kumar, all Senior Advocates, practising in the  

Supreme Court, were appointed as the members of the  

Implementation Committee.  After their appointment,  

the members of the Implementation Committee issued  

a questionnaire on 2nd January, 2012, which was  

forwarded to all the members of the SCBA, to be  

filled up and returned to the office of the SCBA  

for the purposes indicated in the judgment itself.  

The questionnaire was meant for Senior Advocates,  

6

Page 7

Advocates-on-Record and Non-Advocates-on-Record.  

The same was prepared in keeping with the procedure  

followed in Vinay     Balchandra     Joshi  ’s case (supra).  

Thereafter, the Implementation Committee held a  

meeting on 11th January, 2012 and adopted the  

following resolutions :

“2. In view of the directions of the Supreme  Court of India, in its judgment in SCBA Vs.  B.D. Kaushik, to the effect that “the  Committee of the SCBA to be appointed is  hereby directed to prepare a list of regular  members practising in this Court……”, the  following categories of members of SCBA, in  addition to the list of members already  approved by the Implementation Committee,  are entitled to vote at, and contest, the  election of the office bearers of the SCBA  as ‘regular members practising in this  Court’:

(i) All Advocates on Record who have  filed cases during the calendar year  2011.

(ii) All Senior Advocates designated as  Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court  of India, who are resident in Delhi  and attending the Supreme Court of  India.

(iii) All members who subscribed to any of  the cause lists of the Supreme Court  

7

Page 8

of India during the calendar year  2011.

(iv) All members who have been members of  the SCBA for the last 25 years,  commencing 01.01.1986, and have been  paying subscription to the SCBA  regularly, in each one of the 25  years.

3. The list of such members who are eligible to  vote and contest elections will be put up on  the SCBA notice board for the information of  all members and will also be circulated in  the usual manner including circulation with  the daily cause list.  Copies of this list  will also be available at the reception desk  in Library I.

4. The persons whose names figure in this list  need not reply to the questionnaire issued  earlier.”

6. At a further meeting of the Implementation  

Committee held on 15th January, 2012, certain other  

resolutions were adopted identifying some of the  

members of the SCBA who were not required to fill  

up the questionnaire, except to indicate the  

category under which they claimed to be regular  

members practising in the Supreme Court.

8

Page 9

7. Thereafter, certain incidents took place to  

which we need not refer in these proceedings.  

However, certain disputes arose between the members  

of the Supreme Bar Association regarding the  

criteria laid down by the Implementation Committee  

for identification of members who are regularly  

practising in the Supreme Court.  As a consequence,  

Interlocutory Application No.5 came to be filed on  

behalf of the Supreme Court Bar Association seeking  

clarification and directions in regard to the  

criteria evolved by the Implementation Committee.

8. The said application was heard in the presence  

of the members of the SCBA and the Implementation  

Committee and certain suggestions were made which  

we feel need to be taken into consideration by the  

Implementation Committee while identifying the  

members of the SCBA who were regularly practising  

in the Supreme Court for the purpose of determining  

their eligibility to vote to elect the Office  

9

Page 10

Bearers of the SCBA. In fact, certain suggestions  

were made with regard to criteria evolved by the  

Implementation Committee.

9. The first criteria laid down by the  

Implementation Committee that all the members of  

the SCBA who had 50 appearances and/or 20 filings  

in a year, should be considered to be regular  

practitioners in the Supreme Court, was duly  

accepted.  A suggestion was also made to include  

advocates who have been continuously representing  

the State Governments or the Union Government  

before the Supreme Court for at least three years  

and have a minimum of 50 appearances for such  

Government, in the category of regular  

practitioners with right to vote. Another  

suggestion was made to include Advocates, who were  

Government Standing Counsel or counsel appearing  

for the Government in the Supreme Court and all  

Advocates-on-Record in the said category.  It was  

10

Page 11

also suggested that non-Advocates-on-Record who  

were in the panel of Amicus Curiae, approved by the  

Supreme Court Registry, and members who are working  

as Mediators in the Supreme Court Mediation Centre,  

be also included in this category.  The said  

suggestions were found to be sound and were  

accepted.     

10. The next suggestion of the Implementation  

Committee was with regard to the inclusion of all  

Senior Advocates of the Supreme Court, who are  

resident in Delhi and attending the Supreme Court.  

It was rightly pointed out that in view of the  

close proximity of the satellite townships, which  

had grown up around Delhi, such Senior Advocates  

who resided in Noida, Gurgaon, Faridabad and  

Ghaziabad, should also be included in this  

category. The said suggestion is sound and is  

accepted.

11

Page 12

11. Yet another criteria for identification of  

regular practitioners in the Supreme Court as  

suggested by the Implementation Committee was that  

all members of the SCBA who had attended the  

Supreme Court at least 90 days in the calendar year  

2011, as established by the database showing the  

use of proximity cards maintained by the Registrar  

of the Supreme Court, could also be included in the  

list of regular practitioners. It was felt that  

instead of attendance of 90 days, the same should  

be reduced to 60 days, which suggestion is duly  

accepted. As a supplement to the above, it is also  

accepted that appearances before the Chamber Judge,  

as also before the Registrar’s Courts, in the years  

2009 and 2010, will be counted towards the total  

number of appearances.   

12. One of the suggestions made by the  

Implementation Committee with regard to the  

directions contained in the judgment delivered in  

12

Page 13

the Civil Appeals regarding publication of details  

of the Voters’  List on the website, showing the  

different categories of members of the SCBA who  

were recognized as regular practitioners and those  

who were not, was also taken up for consideration.  

It was felt that such publication could adversely  

affect the learned Advocates who were not shown to  

be regular practitioners in the Supreme Court.  It  

was generally felt that the publication on the  

website should not be resorted to and individual  

members should be informed of their status either  

by E-mail or through SMS on their mobile phones.  

The objection has merit and is allowed and such  

publication need not be effected.

13. It was specifically felt that allotment of  

Chambers, other than in the Supreme Court, should  

not be made a criteria for identifying members who  

were regular practitioners in the Supreme Court and  

the said decision was also considered and accepted.  

13

Page 14

14. It was lastly 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 “One Bar One Vote”  

principle, or to attend the General Body meetings  

of the SCBA.  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  

abovementioned years. The said suggestion is also  

accepted and approved.  

15. I.A. No.5 filed in the disposed of Appeals is,  

therefore, disposed of with a direction to the  

Members of the Implementation Committee to modify  

the criteria suggested by it in the light of the  

above suggestions, which have been accepted in this  

order, for the purpose of identifying members of  

14

Page 15

the SCBA, who are regular practitioners in the  

Supreme Court, for the purposes indicated in the  

judgment dated 26th September, 2011.   

16. The Members of the Implementation Committee are  

directed to take expeditious steps in finalizing  

the Voters’ List of members of the SCBA entitled to  

cast their votes in the election of Office Bearers  

of the SCBA, and, thereafter, to set the programme  

for the election of the Office Bearers and conduct  

the same as expeditiously as possible. Till then,  

the arrangement with regard to the management of  

the SCBA, as is existing, shall continue.

………………………………………………………J.    (ALTAMAS KABIR)

………………………………………………………J.    (J. CHELAMESWAR)

New Delhi Dated :July 20, 2012.

15