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.