1

        REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO. 126 OF 2015  

Ajayinder Sangwan and Ors.  .... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Bar Council of Delhi & Ors.               .... Respondent(s)

O R D E R  R.K. Agrawal, J.

1) A  bunch  of  Interlocutory  Applications  for

clarification/impleadment/direction/intervention/  appropriate

orders/modification, in the lead matter, has been filed after the

order passed by this Court on 14.12.2017, is being disposed of

by this common order.

2) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

IA Nos. 14049, 14055, 14059 and 14062 of 2018

2

3) The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is

that  learned Advocate General  for  the State  of  Tamil  Nadu,

who is ex-officio member of the State Bar Council, has written

a  letter  dated  15.01.2018  expressing  apprehension  on  his

ability  to  conduct  free  and  fair  elections  to  the  State  Bar

Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.  It was also brought to

the attention of this Court the order dated 23.01.2018 passed

by a Division Bench of  the Madras High Court wherein the

court had come to the conclusion for appointment of a neutral

committee of  retired Judges either of  the Supreme Court of

India  or  of  the  Madras  High  Court  to  oversee  the  election.

However, the court did not pass any order as the matter was

pending before this Court.   

4) In the application for directions filed on behalf of the BCI

dated  23.01.2018,  it  has  been  stated  that  the

Tribunal/Committees  have  been  constituted  to  oversee  the

elections to be held by the respective State Bar Councils.  So

far as the elections to be held for the Bar Council to the State

of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is concerned, the Committee

constituted  by  the  BCI  consists  of  the  following  persons,

3

namely, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Gupta, former Chief Justice

of  the  Jharkhand  High  Court,  Hon’ble  Mr.  Justice  T.

Sudanthiram, former Judge, Madras High Court and Hon’ble

Mr. Justice V.D. Gyani, former Judge, Madhya Pradesh High

Court.  The aforementioned Committee has been entrusted to

look into the affairs of the elections to the State Bar Council of

Tamil  Nadu  and  Puducherry.   The  Committee  consists  of

retired Chief Justice/Judges of various High Courts and we do

not find any good ground to constitute any another Committee

in its place.   

5) For  the  reasons  mentioned  above,  the  interlocutory

applications are accordingly dismissed.

IA Nos. 9727 and 7520 of 2018

6) By  these  two  applications,  the  applicants,  who  are

practicing advocates in the State of Kerala seek impleadment

as also modification of the election schedule finalized by the

BCI.

7) In view of the application for directions filed on behalf of

the BCI on 23.01.2018, the election schedule for the State of

Kerala has been fixed and the date of election is notified as

4

25.03.2018.   Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  applicants

contended that the day of election though being Sunday, is a

festival day celebrated in the State and therefore, it would not

be possible for the majority of the voters to cast their vote.  A

request  was  made  to  pre-pone  the  date  of  election  from

25.03.2018 to 18.03.2018.  

8) Considering the special facts and circumstances of  the

case, we pre-pone the date of election for Bar Council of Kerala

from 25.03.2018 to 18.03.2018, however, rest of the election

schedule, as finalized by the BCI, will remain the same.  The

applications are disposed of accordingly.

IA Nos. 11955 and 11959 of 2018

9) By  the  above  two  applications,  the  applicants  seek  a

direction to the BCI and the Bar Council  of  Maharashtra &

Goa to permit the advocates of these States, who are on the

electoral rolls, to cast their vote at New Delhi.  Further, all the

applicants hail from Maharashtra and Goa and have settled in

Delhi for the purpose of legal practice. A reference has been

invited to the Resolution passed by the BCI wherein the BCI

has  requested  learned  Secretary  General  of  this  Court  to

5

consider  providing  sufficient  space  to  enable  the  advocates

who are registered with different State Bar Councils and are

on the electoral lists of the respective State Bar Councils to

cast their votes at New Delhi itself.  However, no response has

been received by the BCI so far.

10) Owing  to  the  election  schedule  having  already  been

finalized, we do not find any ground to permit the applicants

or the advocates who are practicing at New Delhi to cast their

votes at New Delhi instead of their respective States.   

IA No. 12811 of 2018

11) The present application has been filed by the Bar Council

of Rajasthan seeking rescheduling of the date of election from

28.03.2018 to 05.04.2018 on the ground that the Rajasthan

High Court has holidays from 24.03.2018 to 01.04.2018 and

all the members who are practicing in the High Court would

not be able to exercise their franchise owing to holidays in the

Court.  We do not find any good ground to defer the date of

election on the pretext of holidays as it would not be proper for

us to reschedule the election which has already been fixed for

28.03.2018.  The application is, therefore, rejected.

6

IA No. 14854 of 2018

12) By means of present application, the applicant,  who is

enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi, seeks a

direction  to  the  effect  that  his  name  be  included  in  the

electoral  list  for  the  reason  that  he  had  submitted  all  the

requisite documents within time.  However, we find that the

applicant  had  not  provided  the  copies  of  the  original

documents as a result of which his name was not included in

the electoral roll.   

13) We have given our thoughtful consideration to the plea

raised by  the  applicant.   In  our  view,  no ground has been

made out for directing the Bar Council of Delhi to include the

name of the applicant in the electoral roll.  The application is

rejected accordingly.     

IA No. 13749 of 2018

14) By  means  of  this  application,  the  applicant,  who  is

practicing as an advocate and is enrolled with the Bar Council

of Andhra Pradesh seeks a direction to conduct elections and

direct the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council and Telangana State

7

Bar Council to conduct election as per the scheduled declared

by this Court.

15) In the application for directions filed on behalf of the Bar

Council of India dated 23.01.2018, we find that the election

schedule for the State of Andhra Pradesh has been fixed by

the BCI, however, there is no mention of the election schedule

for the State of Telangana.  It appears that the Bar Council of

Telangana has not yet come into existence and therefore, the

election in the State Bar Council of Telangana has not been

fixed.   

16) In  view  of  the  above,  in  the  present  facts  and

circumstances, we do not find any reason to direct the BCI to

hold  election  for  the  State  Bar  Council  of  Telangana.   The

application is rejected.   

...…………….………………………J.                (R.K. AGRAWAL)                                  

.…....…………………………………J.         (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)         

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 5, 2018.