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
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
Page 15
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