Page 1

REPORTABL E

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A.     NO.1     OF     2012   IN

CIVIL     APPEAL     NOS.3401     OF     2003   Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors. … Appellants  

Vs. B.D. Kaushik … Respondent

WITH I.A.     NO.1     OF     2012     IN     CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.3402    

OF     2003   AND

CONT.     PET.     (C)     NO.45     OF     2012     IN     C.A.    NOs.3401     &     3402     OF     2003   

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

ALTAMAS     KABIR,     J.  

Page 2

1.  I.A. No.1 of 2012 has been filed by the  

Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association  

(SCAORA) in Civil Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003,  

which were disposed of on 26th September, 2011, and  

form the genesis of the events leading to the  

filing of the said application.  It has been a  

painful experience for us to have had to hear this  

matter as it involves two sections of the Supreme  

Court Bar Association whose unbecoming posturing  

has cast dark shadows on the functioning of the Bar  

Association even in the eyes of the general public  

and the litigants who throng the Supreme Court each  

day for their cases.  

2. While Civil Appeal No.3401 of 2003 was filed by  

three Appellants, namely, (i) Supreme Court Bar  

Association (Regd.) through its Honorary Secretary,  

Mr. Ashok Arora; (ii) Mr. Ashok Arora in his  

capacity as the Honorary Secretary of the Supreme  

Court Bar Association; and (iii) Ms. Sunita B. Rao,  

2

Page 3

Coordinator, Implementation Committee, Supreme  

Court Bar Association, (hereinafter referred to as  

“SCBA”), on the other hand, Civil Appeal No.3402 of  

2003 has been filed by the Supreme Court Bar  

Association through its Honorary Secretary.  Both  

the Appeals are directed against the interim order  

dated 5th April, 2003, passed by the learned Civil  

Judge on an application filed under Order XXXIX  

Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of  

Civil Procedure, 1908, filed in Civil Suit Nos.100  

and 101 of 2003.  By the common order, the  

Appellants were restrained from implementing the  

Resolution dated February 18, 2003, amending Rule  

18 of the Rules   and Regulations of SCBA till the  

final disposal of both the suits. While Shri B.D.  

Kaushik is the sole Respondent in Civil Appeal  

No.3401 of 2003, Shri A.K. Manchanda is the sole  

Respondent in Civil Appeal No.3402 of 2003. Both  

the Respondents are Advocates who are practising in  

Delhi and are Members of the SCBA, the Delhi Bar  

3

Page 4

Association and the Bar Association of the Tis  

Hazari Courts, Delhi.    

3.  The Supreme Court Bar Association is a Society  

registered under the Societies Registration Act,  

1860, on 25th August, 1999, under Registration  

No.35478 of 1999. In keeping with the provisions of  

the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the SCBA has  

framed its Memorandum of Association and Rules and  

Regulations, Rule 4 whereof divides the Members  

into four separate classes, namely, :-

(i) Resident Members; (ii) Non-Resident Members; (iii) Associate Members; and (iv) Non-Active Members.

Rule 5(v)(a) provides that in terms of Rule 5,  

an Applicant found to be suitable to be made a  

Member of the Association would be made Member  

initially on temporary basis for a period of two  

years.  It also provides that a person who is made  

4

Page 5

such a Member, would be identified as a temporary  

Member who would be entitled to avail the  

facilities of the Association, such as library and  

canteen, but would not have a right to participate  

in general meetings, as prescribed in Rule 21 or to  

contest and vote at the elections, as provided in  

Rule 18.

4. On 23rd January, 2003, the Office of the SCBA  

received a requisition dated 10th January, 2003,  

signed by 343 Members seeking an amendment to Rule  

18 regarding the eligibility of the Members to  

contest and vote at an election. It was proposed  

that the Member, who exercised his right to vote in  

any High Court or District Court Advocates/Bar  

Association, would not be eligible to contest for  

any post of the SCBA or to cast his vote at the  

elections.  The said requisition dated 10th January,  

2003, was considered in the meeting of the  

Executive Committee of the SCBA on 1st February,  

5

Page 6

2003 and a decision was taken to hold a Special  

General Body Meeting on 18th February, 2003, to  

consider the requisition. It appears that notice  

for the said General Body Meeting was issued by the  

SCBA on 6th February, 2003, and copies of the same  

were sent to the Members along with the cause list.  

The notice was also displayed on the Notice Board  

of the office of the SCBA situated in the Supreme  

Court premises. The notices were also sent to  

different Bar Associations at Delhi, including the  

Delhi Bar Association.  On 18th February, 2003, the  

General Body Meeting was convened in which 278  

Members participated. Some of the Members of the  

Association had spoken against the requisition, but  

when the Resolution proposing the amendment in Rule  

18 of the Rules was put to vote, it was passed by a  

majority of 85% of the Members present and voting.  

Subsequently, at a meeting of the Executive  

Committee convened on 3rd March, 2003, a Resolution  

was adopted to hold election of the Office Bearers  

6

Page 7

for the next session and for the constitution of  

the Election Committee on 25th April, 2003.  An  

Election Committee of three Members of the SCBA was  

constituted for the purpose of conducting the  

election.  In the said meeting, a requisition  

signed by 237 Members of the SCBA to recall the  

Resolution dated 18th February, 2003, was taken up  

for consideration, but deferred on account of the  

fact that the elections had been declared.  

Moreover, in the meeting of the Executive Committee  

held on 10th March, 2003, it was resolved to  

constitute an Implementation Committee to implement  

the Resolution of “One Bar One Vote”, which was  

adopted in the General Body Meeting of 18th  

February, 2003.   

5. The apparent differences, which have surfaced  

between the two groups of Members within the SCBA,  

resulted in Mr. B.D. Kaushik filing Suit No.100 of  

2003 in the Court of Shri Sanjeev Jain, Commercial  

7

Page 8

Civil Judge, Delhi, challenging the validity of the  

Resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of  

the SCBA on 18th February, 2003. While seeking a  

decree for a declaration that the Resolution dated  

18th February, 2003, was illegal and ineffective,  

the Plaintiff also prayed for a decree of perpetual  

injunction to restrain the SCBA and the Office  

Bearers from implementing the said Resolution dated  

18th February, 2003, in the elections of the SCBA  

which were proposed to be held on 25th April, 2003.  

A further prayer was made to restrain the SCBA from  

debarring any of the Members of the SCBA who had  

already paid their subscription from casting their  

votes in the elections which were scheduled to be  

held on 25th April, 2003.  A similar Suit No.101 of  

2003 was filed before the same learned Judge by  

Shri A.K. Manchanda, seeking the same relief as had  

been sought by Mr. B.D. Kaushik in his Suit No.100  

of 2003.   

8

Page 9

6. As indicated hereinbefore, applications were  

filed by the Plaintiffs in both the suits under  

Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of  

the Code of Civil Procedure to restrain the  

Defendants, who are the Appellants in the two civil  

appeals, from implementing the Resolution dated 18th  

February, 2003, till the final disposal of the  

suits.  By a common order dated 5th April, 2003, the  

learned Judge allowed the two applications filed  

for injunction and restrained the Appellants herein  

from implementing the Resolution dated 18th  

February, 2003, amending Rule 18 of the Rules and  

Regulations of the SCBA, till the final disposal of  

the suits.

7. The Supreme Court Bar Association through its  

Honorary Secretary thereupon filed the two Civil  

Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003 against the said  

common order dated 5th April, 2003, passed by the  

learned Civil Judge, Delhi. Both the matters were  

9

Page 10

placed before the Court in the mentioning list of  

10th April, 2003, when the matters were taken on  

Board and leave was granted. Pending the  

proceedings, the common order passed by the Trial  

Court was also stayed.  It was also made clear that  

if any elections were held, the same would be  

subject to the result of the Appeals.  Thereafter,  

this Court appointed Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned  

Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae to assist the  

Court in the two matters.  In addition, the Court  

also requested the learned Attorney General to  

assist the Court.  Accordingly, the Appeals were  

taken up for hearing in the presence of the Amicus  

Curiae, the learned Attorney General, Mr. Rajesh  

Aggarwal, who appeared on behalf of the Appellants  

and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, learned Advocate, who  

appeared on behalf of the original plaintiffs.  

Since the matter involved the learned Advocates  

practising in the Supreme Court, the Court also  

heard senior counsel Mr. P.P. Rao, the former  

10

Page 11

President of the SCBA, Mr. Pravin Parekh, the  

present President of the SCBA and Mr. Sushil Kumar  

Jain, the President of SCAORA. The Court also  

considered the Memorandum of Association of SCBA as  

well as its Rules and Regulations.  

      8. During the hearing, one of the more important  

issues that surfaced was the escalating number of  

Members of the SCBA to about 10,000 Members, of  

whom only around 2,000 Members were said to be  

regularly practising in the Supreme Court. The  

manner in which the membership was infiltrated was  

also brought to the notice of the Court and a  

definite and deliberate allegation was made that  

out of the 10,000 Members of the SCBA, not more  

than 2,000 Members were seen to attend the Supreme  

Court regularly and the remaining 8,000 Members are  

seen in the Supreme Court premises only on the day  

of the SCBA elections.  It was alleged that apart  

from the above, these 8,000 floating members had no  

11

Page 12

interest whatsoever in the functioning of the SCBA  

or the well-being of its Members, or even the  

functioning of the Supreme Court of India as a  

Court.   

9. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel, and a  

past President of the SCBA, with a lot of  

experience behind him, asserted that in view of the  

overwhelming number of advocates admitted to the  

membership of the SCBA, it was necessary to  

identify the advocates who actually practised in  

the Supreme Court in keeping with the criteria  

adopted by this Court for allotment of chambers in  

Vinay     Balchandra     Joshi   Vs. Registrar     General     of    

Supreme     Court     of     India   [(1998) 7 SCC 461].  Mr. Rao  

submitted that the said criteria could be adopted  

in identifying the regular practitioners in the  

Supreme Court.  In the judgment dated 26th  

September, 2011, the Hon’ble Judges had recorded  

that the learned advocates who had appeared in the  

12

Page 13

matter had urged the Court to give  

guidelines/directions for effective implementation  

of the amended rule which projects the principle of  

“One Bar One Vote”. Accepting the submissions for  

the need to identify the members of the SCBA who  

regularly practised in the Supreme Court, and also  

taking note of Mr. Rao’s suggestions, the Court  

directed that the criteria adopted by this Court  

for allotment of chambers, as explained in Vinay  

Balchandra     Joshi  ’s case (supra), should be adopted  

by the SCBA in this case also. The Court also  

observed that to identify regular practitioners in  

the Supreme Court, it would be open to the Office  

Bearers of the SCBA or a small Committee appointed  

by the SCBA, consisting of three senior advocates,  

to collect information about those members who had  

contested elections in any of the Court-annexed Bar  

Associations, such as, the High Court Bar  

Association, District Court Bar Association, Taluka  

Bar Association, etc., from 2005 to 2010.  The  

13

Page 14

Committee of the SCBA to be appointed was, inter  

alia, directed as follows :

“The Committee of SCBA to be appointed is  hereby directed to prepare a list of  regular members practising in the Supreme  Court and another separate list of members  not regularly practising in the Supreme  Court and third list of temporary members  of the SCBA.  The lists were directed to  be put up on the SCBA website and also on  the SCBA notice board.  The committee was  also directed to send a letter to each  member of the SCBA informing him about his  status of membership on or before 28th  February, 2012.  An aggrieved member would  be entitled to make a representation  within 15 days from the date of receipt of  the letter from the SCBA to the Committee,  which is to be appointed by the SCBA.”   

10. It was subsequently mentioned in the judgment  

that once a declaration had been made by the  

Committee, it would be valid till it was revoked  

and once it was revoked, the Member would forfeit  

14

Page 15

his right to vote or contest any election to any  

post to be conducted by the SCBA, for a period of  

three years from the date of revocation.  It was  

also categorically indicated that the Members of  

the SCBA, whose names did not figure in the final  

list of regular practitioners, would not be  

entitled to either vote at an election of the  

Office Bearers of the SCBA or to contest any of the  

posts for which elections would be held by the  

SCBA.  On the suggestion of the SCBA, the Hon’ble  

Judges recommended the names of Mr. K.K. Venugopal,  

Mr. P.P. Rao, and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior  

Advocates, practising in the Supreme Court, for  

constituting the Implementation Committee, subject  

to their consent and convenience.

11. As it appears from the materials disclosed  

before us, the three aforesaid senior members of  

the Bar, whose names had been suggested, were  

ultimately appointed by the SCBA to be the members  

15

Page 16

of the Implementation Committee to implement the  

directions given by the Hon’ble Judges in Civil  

Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003.    

12. For the purpose of implementing the directions  

of this Court contained in the judgment dated 26th  

September, 2011, the Implementation Committee  

issued a Questionnaire to all the Members of the  

SCBA. Furthermore, in order to identify the regular  

practitioners of the Court, the Implementation  

Committee adopted certain criteria vide its  

Resolution dated 11th January, 2012, and the Members  

who fulfilled the said criteria were to be treated  

as regular practitioners of this Court, along with  

the 754 Members to whom Chambers had already been  

allotted or whose names were already included in  

the approved Waiting List for allotment of  

Chambers. The Resolution adopted by the  

Implementation Committee in its meeting held on 11th  

January, 2012, is reproduced hereinbelow :-

16

Page 17

“RESOLUTION 1. The Implementation Committee of the Supreme  

Court Bar Association, in its meeting held  on 11.01.2012 at 1:10 p.m. has resolved as  follows:

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  of India during the calendar year  2011.

17

Page 18

(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.  

   Sd/-               Sd/-           Sd/- K.K. VENUGOPAL      P.P. RAO      RANJIT KUMAR”

13. Thereafter, pursuant to a request made by some  

of the Members of the SCBA to the Implementation  

Committee, the said Committee by its Resolution  

dated 15th January, 2012, included two other  

categories of Members who were to be treated as  

regular Members of the SCBA, namely :-

18

Page 19

(i) All Members of the SCBA, who have attended  

the Supreme Court of India on at least 90  

days in the Calendar Year 2011, as  

established from the database showing the  

use of Proximity Cards maintained by the  

Registry of the Supreme Court of India;  

and  

(ii) All Live Members of the SCBA, other than  

temporary Members, as on 31.12.2011.

14. While the aforesaid exercise was being  

undertaken by the Implementation Committee, on 12th  

January, 2012, about 240 Members of the SCBA  

requested the convening of a General Body Meeting  

of the SCBA. As the Executive Committee of the SCBA  

had at its meeting held on 6th January, 2012,  

already decided to call such Meeting on 16th  

January, 2012, a Circular in this regard was issued  

informing the Members that the Meeting would be  

held on 16th January, 2012. It is alleged that on  

19

Page 20

16th January, 2012, apart from the regular  

practitioners, a large number of persons who were  

not even members of the SCBA, assembled at the  

venue of the meeting and obstructed Shri P.H.  

Parekh, the elected President of the SCBA, from  

conducting the meeting.  

15. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, Mrs. B.  

Sunita Rao, learned Advocate and the Secretary of  

the Applicant Association, filed an application for  

directions, setting out in detail the events of the  

General Body Meeting convened on 16th January, 2012,  

to consider the implementation of the  

recommendations of the Implementation Committee.  

In the said background, the Applicant prayed that  

in furtherance of the judgment dated 26th September,  

2011, only those Members of the SCBA, whose names  

would be identified and declared by the  

Implementation Committee, consisting of Shri K.K.  

Venugopal, Shri P.P. Rao and Shri Ranjit Kumar,  

20

Page 21

Senior Advocates, would be entitled to participate  

in the elections and/or General Body Meeting of the  

SCBA or to vote either in the election or in the  

General Body Meeting or to sign any requisition.  

Among the other prayers was a prayer for a  

direction that the meeting held on 16th January,  

2012, and the decisions purportedly taken therein,  

were null and void.  A direction was also sought  

that the Implementation Committee comprised of Shri  

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

Kumar, Senior Advocates, and no other person,  

should be allowed to complete the task of  

implementing the judgment dated 26th September,  

2011.

16. The said two applications were taken up for  

consideration and extensive submissions were made,  

both in support of and against the reliefs sought  

for therein.  

21

Page 22

17.  Appearing on behalf of the Appellant  

Association, Mr. Ashok Desai, learned Senior  

Advocate, submitted that the events which occurred  

on 16th January, 2012, at the Requisition Meeting  

convened at the instance of some of the members of  

the SCBA, were highly condemnable and left much to  

be desired.  Mr. Desai submitted that after Mr.  

P.H. Parekh, the elected President of the SCBA had  

been shouted down, it was unceremoniously declared  

that he had resigned and his resignation from the  

post of President of the SCBA had been accepted in  

the meeting by a Resolution said to have been  

adopted at the meeting itself. Mr. Desai submitted  

that seeing the manner in which the meeting was  

being taken over by a certain section of the  

persons present at the venue of the meeting, Mr.  

Parekh requested Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior  

Advocate and a former President of the SCBA, to  

preside over and conduct the meeting.  Mr. Desai  

further submitted that even Mr. Ram Jethmalani was  

22

Page 23

not permitted to preside over the meeting and Mr.  

Pramod Swarup, a Senior Advocate and Member of the  

Executive Council, was prevailed upon to preside  

over the meeting, where certain resolutions were  

allegedly adopted, which were not only unlawful,  

but even contumacious.

18. Mr. Desai then referred to the letter dated  

17th January, 2012, addressed by one Mr. Arun Kumar,  

Advocate, to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India  

enclosing copies of the Resolution purportedly  

passed by the Members of the SCBA on 16th January,  

2012, in its Special General Meeting. The said  

Resolution purported to have been adopted on 16th  

January, 2012, is extracted hereinbelow :-

“RESOLUTION Special General Body Meeting held on 16.01.2012  at 4.15 PM at Supreme Court Lawns passed the  following Resolutions through Voice Vote and  Show of Hands : The Special General Body of the SCBA, presided  over by Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate (who  

23

Page 24

was invited to preside over the meeting by  President Mr. P.H. Parekh), has resolved that :

(1) Under the Rule making powers of SCBA  (General Body) it is resolved that the  judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated  26.9.2011 passed in the case of HCBA Vs.  B.D. Kaushik should not be given effect  to.

(2) The Implementation Committee proposed by  the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its  judgment dated 26th September, 2011 passed  in the case of SCBA Vs. B.D. Kaushik has  itself ignored the judgment and is left  with no authority to issue any list of the  regular practicing Members of SCBA as it  has acted in a manner which is detrimental  to the interest of Members of SCBA and,  therefore, the Implementation Committee  stands dissolved.

(3) The Members of Implementation Committee,  namely, (i) Shri P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate,  (ii) Shri K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate,  and (iii) Shri Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate,  are forthwith expelled from the Primary  Membership of the SCBA.

(4) All the active Members of SCBA, without  any classification, will be eligible to  vote in the annual elections, subject to  their clearing the annual subscription/  dues and filing of the Declaration Form.

(5) Mr. P.H. Parekh, President of SCBA has  publicly announced his resignation from  his post with immediate effect. His  

24

Page 25

resignation is forthwith accepted by the  General Body.

     The Meeting ended with thanks to the  Chair.

Resolution signed by more than 400 SCBA  Members present during the Special General  Body Meeting.”

19. Mr. Desai also drew our attention to the  

minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee  

purported to have been held on 18th January, 2012,  

chaired by Mr. Pramod Swarup, Senior Executive  

Member, who had purportedly chaired the General  

Body Meeting held on 16th January, 2012. Mr. Desai  

pointed out from the minutes that the same  

resolution which had been adopted at the General  

Body Meeting of 16th January, 2012, was also adopted  

at the purported meeting of the Executive Committee  

held on 18th January, 2012.  

20. On the resolutions said to have been adopted  

both at the Special General Body Meeting and the  

25

Page 26

meeting of the Executive Committee of the SCBA  

allegedly held thereafter, Mr. Desai submitted that  

the said resolutions are per se in disregard of the  

judgment of this Court in SCBA Vs. B.D.     Kaushik   and  

are, therefore, null and void. Mr. Desai also  

pointed out that the resolution starts by recording  

that “The Special General Meeting of the SCBA was  

presided over by Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate”,  

but Mr. Ram Jethmalani, who was present in the  

Court stated that he did not preside over the  

meeting and he had also expressed his view that  

everybody should speak in a decorous manner. Mr.  

Parekh, the President and all concerned parties  

should be given a full hearing and all grievances  

should be ventilated in accordance with law.  Mr.  

Desai submitted that the statement made by Mr. Ram  

Jethmalani in Court had not been contradicted by  

anyone.   

26

Page 27

21. Mr. Desai also submitted that the Special  

General Body Meeting of the SCBA had been convened  

on 16th January, 2012, only for the purpose of  

considering the implication of the judgment dated  

26th September, 2011, passed in Civil Appeal  

Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003, and the agenda of the  

said meeting clearly reflected the same.  Mr. Desai  

submitted that there was no suggestion that the  

meeting was held to consider :              

  a) that the validity of the aforesaid  

judgment should not be given effect  to;

b) that the Implementation Committee  should be dissolved;

(c) that the Members of the Implementation  Committee, namely, Mr. K.K. Venugopal,  Mr. P.P. Rao and Mr. Ranjit Kumar,  learned Senior Advocates should be  expelled from primary membership of  the Association;

(d) that the members who were not eligible  should be entitled to vote,  notwithstanding the judgment delivered  in B.D. Kaushik’s case (supra); or

27

Page 28

(e) that anybody’s resignation should be  accepted.   

22. Referring to Section 173(2) of the Companies  

Act, 1956, Mr. Desai contended that as had been  

repeatedly held by this Court, at any Extraordinary  

General Meeting, along with a notice of the  

meeting,  a statement setting out all material  

facts in respect of each item of business to be  

transacted at the meeting, had to be annexed. In  

this regard, Mr. Desai referred to the decision of  

this Court in Claude-Lila     Parulekar     (Smt.)   Vs.  

Sakal     Papers     (P)     Ltd.     &     Ors.   [(2005) 11 SCC 73], in  

which it was categorically held that in respect of  

special business an explanatory statement had to be  

annexed to the notice of the Board Meeting and in  

the absence thereof, any decision taken in  

connection with such special business would be  

invalid. A similar view had earlier been expressed  

in Life     Insurance     Corporation     of     India   Vs. Escorts  

Ltd.     &     Ors.   [(1986) 1 SCC 264].   

28

Page 29

23. Mr. Desai submitted that even Mr. Dinesh  

Dwivedi and Mr. S.P. Singh, learned Senior  

Advocates, had, at the very first instance,  

submitted that Resolution Nos.1 and 4 relating to  

the decision not to give effect to the judgment of  

this Court dated 26th September, 2011, and that all  

active members of SCBA without any classification  

would be eligible to vote in the annual elections,  

could not be defended and submitted that the same  

be disregarded and treated as withdrawn. Mr. Desai  

urged that even the decision to expel the three  

senior members of the SCBA, who had been appointed  

as the members of the Implementation Committee, was  

not only irregular, but in complete violation of  

the Rules relating to expulsion of members of the  

SCBA and in breach of the principles of natural  

justice. Mr. Desai also urged that when the  

aforesaid resolution was sent to the Vice-President  

of the SCBA on 17th January, 2012, the majority of  

29

Page 30

the members of the Executive Committee by a  

circular resolution of even date requested him to  

withdraw the same and on such request being  

communicated to Mr. Parekh, he withdrew his  

resignation on 18th January, 2012.  The meeting of  

the Executive Committee on 18th January, 2012, was,  

therefore, wholly unauthorized and all the members  

of the Executive Committee were so informed by way  

of SMS and E-mails dated 18th January, 2012.  Mr.  

Desai submitted that the Minutes of the meeting  

held on 18th January, 2012, were unanimously  

recalled by the Executive Committee on 19th January,  

2012, in their entirety. It was also pointed out  

that out of the 21 members, 18 members were present  

in that meeting of the Executive Committee held on  

19th January, 2012.   

24. Mr. Desai further submitted that Rule 35 of the  

SCBA Rules and Regulations provided for the removal  

of a member from the SCBA on receipt of a written  

30

Page 31

complaint. Rule 35 provides the procedure for  

dealing with such complaints and categorically  

indicates that only if the Committee was satisfied  

that there was a prima facie case against a member  

complained against, it would direct the complaint,  

together with the report of the Committee or Sub-

Committee, to be placed before a General Meeting of  

the Association and afford the member concerned a  

reasonable opportunity of being heard in person.

25. Mr. Desai submitted that certain subsequent  

developments are also required to be taken note of  

and, in particular, a requisition notice dated 23rd  

March, 2012, signed by 2/3rd of the Members of the  

SCBA, many of whom were signatories to the General  

Body Meeting resolution dated 16th January, 2012,  

requiring the Executive Committee to initiate the  

process of election and to publish the list of  

voters on or before 17th April, 2012, failing which  

the Members would call a General Body Meeting and  

31

Page 32

pass a resolution of “No Confidence”  against the  

Executive Committee.  Mr. Desai submitted that the  

requisition was considered by the Executive  

Committee of the SCBA and in its meeting of 11th  

April, 2012, it was resolved that since the matter  

had been heard by this Court and judgment had been  

reserved on 4th April, 2012, the requisition notice  

dated 23rd March, 2012, should be placed before this  

Court with an application seeking proper  

directions.   

26. Mr. Desai submitted that yet another  

requisition notice dated 18th April, 2012, was  

received on 20th April, 2012, purported to have been  

signed by 252 advocates, calling upon the members  

of the Executive Committee to convene a General  

Body Meeting on 25th April, 2012, failing which the  

requisitionists would hold a General Body Meeting  

on that day and pass a resolution of ‘No  

32

Page 33

Confidence’ and also fix the date of holding of the  

elections of the SCBA in the month of May, 2012.   

27. Mr. Desai submitted that the manner in which  

the Special General Meeting was held on 16th  

January, 2012, was highly contumacious and,  

therefore, void, and was liable to be declared as  

such.  Furthermore, the subsequent notices received  

for holding Requisition Meetings containing a  

demand for finalization of the Voters’  List, was  

completely contrary to the directions given in the  

judgment dated 26th September, 2011, particularly,  

when an illegal resolution was purportedly adopted  

expelling the three members of the Implementation  

Committee from the primary membership of the SCBA.

28. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Advocate,  

who appeared for the Supreme Court Advocate-on-

Record Association, submitted that as far as the  

maintainability of Interlocutory Application No.1  

of 2012 is concerned, there could not be any doubt  

33

Page 34

that the directions issued under Article 142 of the  

Constitution are binding upon all, unless they are  

recalled or set aside in a manner known to law.  

Mr. Salve submitted that any attempt to defy the  

directions would empower this Court with  

jurisdiction to take appropriate action for  

compelling compliance, including by way of  

contempt.  Mr. Salve submitted that the application  

had been made in furtherance of the judgment dated  

26th September, 2011, and the underlying object of  

the application was to uphold the majesty of this  

Court and to ensure that the directions were duly  

implemented in the spirit in which they were given.  

Mr. Salve submitted that since the resolutions said  

to have been adopted by the General Body of the  

Association on 16th January, 2012, were in defiance  

of the directions issued by this Court, this Court  

would always have jurisdiction to deal with such  

violation or to give further directions for  

effective implementation thereof.   

34

Page 35

29. Mr. Salve submitted that the Respondents had  

themselves accepted that Resolution No.1 was in  

defiance of the judgment of this Court. As a  

result, the other Resolutions were a fall-out of  

Resolution No.1 and could not, therefore, be  

accepted. Referring to Resolution No.5 relating to  

Mr. P.H. Parekh’s resignation, Mr. Salve submitted  

that the same was not part of the agenda for the  

meeting held on 16th January, 2012. Mr. Salve  

submitted that the minutes of the meetings held on  

16th and 18th January, 2012, lacked credence and  

acceptability on account of the circumstances in  

which they were adopted.   

30. On the question of whether the Implementation  

Committee acted contrary to the judgment dated 26th  

September, 2011, Mr. Salve submitted that the  

Implementation Committee acted in keeping with the  

guidelines in Vinay     Balchandra     Joshi  ’s case (supra)  

as was directed by this Court and the object of the  

35

Page 36

directions given in the judgment dated 26th  

September, 2011, was to make a list of those who  

regularly practise in the Supreme Court, as they  

alone would have voting rights in the matter of  

elections of the Office Bearers of the Supreme  

Court Bar Association in terms of the judgment.  

Such task had to be performed by the Committee  

within a given time and whatever steps that were  

taken by the Implementation Committee were in the  

light of such directions.   

31. Mr. Salve submitted that given the manner in  

which the purported Resolutions were adopted in the  

meetings said to have been held on 16th and 18th  

January, 2012, the same were liable to be declared  

as non est in law. Mr. Salve further submitted that  

a direction should be given to the Implementation  

Committee to continue with the work of finalizing  

the Voters’  List, as per the directions given in  

the judgment dated 26th September, 2012, on a war  

36

Page 37

footing and to publish the Voters’ List as early as  

possible, so that the subsequent steps could be  

taken for conducting the elections of the Office  

Bearers of SCBA expeditiously.           

32. Appearing on behalf of some of the members of  

the SCBA, Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned Senior  

Advocate, firstly submitted that Interlocutory  

Application No.1 filed in Civil Appeal No.3401 of  

2003, was not maintainable, either under Order 47  

of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, or under Order 13  

Rule 3 thereof. Furthermore, since the judgment  

dated 26th September, 2011, was not under challenge,  

even the provisions of Order 40 of the Supreme  

Court Rules were not applicable to the application.  

Mr. Dwivedi, however, accepted the fact that  

Resolution Nos.1 and 4, which, according to him,  

had been adopted at the Special General Body  

Meeting of the SCBA held on 16th January, 2012,  

37

Page 38

could not be supported and he was not, therefore,  

pressing the same.

33. Mr. Dwivedi urged that once the judgment had  

been delivered, the Court became functus officio  

and any further proceeding in relation to the  

disposed of matter could be only by way of the  

provisions for review, both under the Code of Civil  

Procedure, as also under Order 47 of the Supreme  

Court Rules, 1966. Reiterating his earlier  

submissions, Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi submitted that the  

judgment dated 26th September, 2011, had attained  

finality and could not be modified or altered in  

any manner. In support of his aforesaid  

submissions, Mr. Dwivedi firstly referred to and  

relied upon the decision of this Court in Durgesh  

Sharma Vs. Jayshree [(2008) 9 SCC 648], wherein, as  

a general principle, it was held that the inherent  

powers vested in a Court, could not be invoked when  

there were specific provisions in law in that  

38

Page 39

regard. The decisions in A.R.     Antulay   Vs. R.S.  

Nayak     &     Anr.   [(1988) 2 SCC 602]; Union     Carbide    

Corporation Vs. Union     of     India   [(1991) 4 SCC 584]  

and Supreme     Court     Bar     Association   Vs. Union     of    

India     &     Anr.   [(1998) 4 SCC 409], were also referred  

to, wherein, it had, inter alia, been held that  

Article 142 of the Constitution empowering the  

Supreme Court to pass a decree or to make such  

order, as is necessary for doing complete justice  

in any case or matter pending before it, cannot be  

invoked as a matter of course. It was urged that a  

lis would have to be pending before the Supreme  

Court in order to invoke jurisdiction under Article  

142 of the Constitution.  Mr. Dwivedi urged that in  

the present case, since the appeals themselves had  

been disposed of, there was no pending lis which  

would allow the invocation of the extraordinary  

powers vested in the Supreme Court under Article  

142 of the Constitution.

39

Page 40

34. Mr. Dwivedi submitted that in an application of  

this nature, the extraordinary powers vested in the  

Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution  

could not be invoked to allow the prayers made and  

the same being entirely misconceived, were liable  

to be rejected.                  

35. Representing the Supreme Court Advocates  

Association (Non-AOR), Mr. S.P. Singh, learned  

Senior Advocate, firstly submitted that I.A. Nos.1  

and 2 of 2012, filed on behalf of the SCAORA, were  

not maintainable, since they neither fell within  

the ambit of a Review Petition under Article 137 of  

the Constitution of India or Order XL of the  

Supreme Court Rules, 1966. It was also urged that  

SCAORA was not a necessary party and the  

application filed by it was in gross abuse of the  

process of the Court.  Mr. Singh submitted that  

none of the rights of any of the members of SCAORA  

have been affected by the Resolutions adopted by  

40

Page 41

the Governing Body of the SCBA on 16th January, 2012  

and, if at all any clarification was required, the  

members of the Implementation Committee could have  

come and obtained directions from the Court.   

36. Mr. Singh submitted that the main intention of  

the requisition meeting was to bring to the notice  

of the Executive Committee of the SCBA various  

irregularities committed by the Implementation  

Committee which needed to be rectified. It was  

submitted that what had transpired at the meeting  

of the General Body of SCBA on 16th January, 2012,  

was a reflection of the mood of the members of the  

SCBA, who were of the view that the Executive  

Committee of the SCBA was trying to stall the  

elections which were required to be conducted  

within the month of May, 2012.  Mr. Singh  

reiterated the submissions made by Mr. Dwivedi and  

submitted that since the General Body of the SCBA  

had accepted the resignation of Mr. Parekh given  

41

Page 42

voluntarily, the subsequent meeting of the  

Executive Committee held in his absence could not  

be faulted, since even the Vice-President of the  

Association refused to preside over the meeting.

37. Mr. Singh also urged that the Implementation  

Committee had deviated from the directions given in  

the judgment passed by this Court on 26th September,  

2011, and the questionnaire issued by it contained  

various anomalies and excluded even Senior  

Advocates practising in this Court but living  

outside Delhi, such as in Noida and Gurgaon, from  

being eligible to vote.  

38. Apart from the above, the names of various  

Advocates and Advocates-on-Record had been wrongly  

shown in the list which was also bound to create  

confusion.  For example, the name of Shri M.C.  

Bhandare, the present Governor of Orissa and the  

name of a sitting Judge of the Madras High Court,  

have been included in the list, which clearly went  

42

Page 43

to show that the Implementation Committee had not  

applied its mind to the preparation of the Voters’  

List.  Mr. Singh also urged that the consideration  

of valid members who were eligible to vote was to  

be considered by the SCBA which meant the General  

Body and not the Executive Committee alone.  

Accordingly, even the appointment of Mr. K.K.  

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

Senior Advocates, as members of the Implementation  

Committee, was irregular and unlawful and any  

decision taken by the Committee must be held to be  

void.   

39. Mr. Singh submitted that various mal-practices  

were resorted to by the persons who have been at  

the helm of affairs of SCBA, by throwing lavish  

parties and using other means to attract votes at  

the time of election to the Executive Committee of  

the Association.  Mr. Singh submitted that far from  

protecting the interests of the members of the Bar,  

43

Page 44

some of the present members of the Executive  

Committee were more concerned about their own  

aggrandizement to the detriment of the interests of  

the members of the Bar. Mr. Singh submitted that  

the Resolutions adopted by the General Body Meeting  

of the SCBA at the meeting held on 16th January,  

2012 and the subsequent meeting of the Executive  

Committee held on 18th January, 2012, had been  

legally adopted and could not be interfered with,  

especially in a Petition which was not  

maintainable.        

40. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned Senior Advocate,  

briefly appeared for some of the members and urged  

that having regard to the questionnaire published  

by the members of the Implementation Committee,  

some clarification was necessary as to the voting  

rights of the members of the Association.   

41. Apart from Dr. Dhawan, among others who  

addressed the Court, were Mr. Ashok Arora, learned  

44

Page 45

Advocate and former Honorary Secretary of the SCBA,  

Mr. Pramod Swarup, Senior Executive Member of the  

SCBA, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, former President of  

SCAORA.  Each of them spoke, either in support of  

the submissions made by Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi and Mr.  

S.P. Singh or in favour of those made by Mr. Harish  

Salve and Mr. Ashok Desai.   

42. Since Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior  

Advocate, besides being a member of the  

Implementation Committee, was also appointed as  

amicus curiae by this Court in the matter, we  

requested him to file written submissions in the  

matter.  In a brief submission, Mr. Ranjit Kumar  

submitted that despite all the apprehensions  

expressed by Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi and Mr. S.P. Singh,  

that the rights of the practising lawyers in the  

Supreme Court to form an Association had been  

curtailed or that the provisions of the Societies  

Registration Act were being violated by the  

45

Page 46

Implementation Committee, none of the aforesaid  

rights of the members of the SCBA had been  

curtailed in any manner.  Mr. Ranjit Kumar  

submitted that all that the judgment dated 26th  

September, 2011 in B.D. Kaushik’s case had done was  

to regulate the right to vote and for that purpose  

the Implementation Committee was appointed to  

oversee the same. The membership of the members of  

SCBA was not affected in any way on account of such  

regulations.

43.  From the facts as narrated hereinabove, one  

thing is clear that in view of the order of interim  

injunction passed in the two suits filed by Mr.  

B.K. Kaushik and Mr. A.K. Manchanda restraining the  

SCBA from implementing its Resolution dated 18th  

February, 2003, amending Rule 18 of the Rules and  

Regulations, till the final disposal of both the  

suits, the two appeals were filed by SCBA through  

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

46

Page 47

Sunita B. Rao as Coordinator of the Implementation  

Committee.  When the two appeals were taken up for  

hearing, one of the major issues which was  

canvassed was that in connection with the holding  

of elections to the Executive Committee of the  

SCBA, one of the methods resorted to for the  

purpose of ensuring a candidate’s success in the  

election was to enroll a large number of members to  

vote for a particular candidate.  The same had  

given rise to a lot of discussion and deliberation  

which ultimately resulted in the amendment of Rule  

18 regarding the eligibility of such members to  

contest and vote at any election. It was also  

proposed that a member who exercised his right to  

vote in any High Court or District Court,  

Advocates’  Association or Bar Association, would  

not be eligible to contest for any post of the SCBA  

or to cast his vote at the elections. It was also  

proposed that every member before casting his vote  

would, in a prescribed form, give a declaration  

47

Page 48

that he had not voted in any other election of  

advocates in the High Court/District Court Bar  

Association. Any false declaration would invite  

automatic suspension of the member from the  

membership of the SCBA for a period of three years.  

The requisition dated 10th January, 2003, was placed  

for consideration at a Special General Body meeting  

of the SCBA on 18th February, 2003, and the  

amendment was adopted by a majority of 85% of the  

members present and voting.  Thereafter, at a  

further meeting of the Executive Committee convened  

on 3rd March, 2003, it was resolved to hold election  

of the Office Bearers/Executive Members for the  

next session and for the constitution of the  

Election Committee.  It was further resolved to  

hold elections on 25th April, 2003.  Despite an  

attempt by some of the members to stall the  

proceedings, in the meeting of 10th March, 2003, it  

was resolved to constitute an Implementation  

Committee to implement the Resolution on “One Bar  

48

Page 49

One Vote”  which had been adopted at the General  

Body Meeting on 18th February, 2003.   

44. As indicated hereinbefore, the challenge to the  

Resolution dated 18th February, 2003, in the two  

suits filed by Mr. B.K. Kaushik and Mr. A.K.  

Manchanda resulted in the appeals being preferred  

in this Court by the SCBA through its Honorary  

Secretary, Mr. Ashok Arora.

45. The matter was, thereafter, considered in  

detail by the Hon’ble Judges who took up the  

appeals for hearing and directed that it was  

necessary to identify the regular practitioners for  

the purpose of  establishing the eligibility of the  

members who would be entitled to vote in the  

elections and, accordingly, the Hon’ble Judges  

directed that for the said purpose the best course  

would be to adopt the methodology set out in Vinay  

Balchandra     Joshi  ’s case (supra), and, thereafter,  

it would be open to the Office Bearers of the SCBA  

49

Page 50

or a Small Committee, which may be appointed by the  

SCBA, consisting of three Senior Advocates, to  

collect information and to prepare a list of  

regular members practising in this Court and  

another separate list of members not regularly  

practising in this Court and a third list of  

temporary members of the SCBA.   After placing the  

list on the SCBA website and inviting objections,  

the Committee could then take a final decision  

which would be final and binding on the members of  

the SCBA, and, thereafter the final list of regular  

practitioners of the Supreme Court would be  

displayed by the SCBA.

46. Once such directions had been given in the  

judgment disposing of the two civil appeals filed  

by the SCBA through Mr. Ashok Arora, the members of  

the SCBA were bound by the directions contained  

therein and the said directions had to be obeyed,  

however aggrieved a member of the SCBA might be.  

50

Page 51

The agenda for the meeting of the General Body  

which was convened on 16th January, 2012, to  

consider the implications of the judgment in B.D.  

Kaushik’s case, did not permit the members to  

consider any other agenda for which notice had not  

been given, whatever may have been the mood of the  

members present at the meeting.  If any member felt  

aggrieved by the judgment delivered on 26th  

September, 2011, he could have taken recourse to  

other lawful means available to him under the law.  

The Resolutions adopted at the General Body Meeting  

on 16th January, 2012, and, thereafter, on 18th  

January, 2012, were not only an affront to the  

majesty and dignity of the Supreme Court, but were  

outright contumacious. It is highly regrettable  

that the members of the Supreme Court Bar  

Association. which is the leading Bar Association  

in the country and whose members are expected to  

provide leadership and example to other Bar  

Associations of the country and to act in aid of  

51

Page 52

the judgments of the Courts, should have resorted  

to a Resolution not to abide by the judgment and to  

even act in defiance thereof by resolving that all  

members of the Bar Association would be entitled to  

vote in the elections.  Although, Mr. Dinesh  

Dwivedi did concede that the second and fourth  

Resolutions adopted at the meeting of 16th January,  

2012, should not be taken into consideration, the  

attempt to justify the conduct of the members of  

the SCBA at its meeting held on 16th January, 2012,  

cannot be supported.   Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned  

Senior Advocate, who was present at the meeting  

submitted in no uncertain terms that he had not  

chaired the General Body Meeting convened on 16th  

January, 2012, and was not a party to the  

Resolutions which had been adopted at such meeting.  

On the other hand, Mr. Jethmalani submitted that he  

had cautioned the Members not to act in an unruly  

manner and to allow the proceedings to be conducted  

in a lawful and free manner and to allow each  

52

Page 53

member, who had a grievance, including Mr. Parekh,  

to express his views and then to adopt any  

Resolution that the members felt was needed to be  

adopted in the light of the agenda of the meeting.  

47. We cannot help but notice that although the  

General Body Meeting had been convened to consider  

the implications of the judgment dated 26th  

September, 2011, what transpired later is a  

complete departure therefrom.  The members of the  

SCBA present at the meeting were bent upon their  

own agendas, which were directed against the three  

senior members of the Bar, who had been appointed  

as members of the Implementation Committee,  

together with the President.  In our view, this was  

not a method which should have been resorted to for  

the said purpose.  The meeting degenerated into a  

chaotic situation in which various things were  

done, which were not in accordance with the  

provisions of the Rules and Regulations of the  

53

Page 54

SCBA, and were against the normal rules of decorum  

and cannot be supported, despite attempts made to  

do so by Mr. Dwivedi and Mr. Singh. The manner in  

which the three members of the Implementation  

Committee whose names had been referred to by the  

Hon’ble Judges in the judgment dated 26th September,  

2011, were treated, speaks volumes of the manner in  

which the Hon’ble Members of the SCBA conducted  

themselves.  If any member is aggrieved by the  

actions of any other member and seeks his removal  

from the membership of the SCBA, the rules provide  

the manner in which the same is to be done and  

certainly not arbitrarily. It is no doubt true,  

that some of the members were aggrieved by the  

methodology adopted by the Implementation Committee  

for preparing the list of eligible voters for the  

election, but the same was done pursuant to the  

directions given by this Court in its judgment  

dated 26th September, 2011.  If the members were  

aggrieved by the questionnaire which was  

54

Page 55

promulgated, nothing prevented them from  

approaching this Court and asking for modification  

of the contents thereof.  We are, therefore, unable  

to accept the manner in which the purported General  

Body Meeting of the SCBA was conducted on 16th  

January, 2012, and the Resolutions adopted therein,  

some of which the members themselves were unwilling  

to support, as well as the same resolutions  

purportedly adopted by the Executive Committee of  

the SCBA on 18th January, 2012.   

48. At this stage, it will also be necessary for us  

to deal with the question of maintainability of  

I.A. Nos.1 and 2 raised both by Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi  

and by Mr. S.P. Singh.  Their main contention is  

that once the judgment has been delivered by the  

Court, the Court becomes functus officio and in the  

absence of any pending lis, this Court could not  

have entertained the said two applications.

55

Page 56

49. We are unable to accept the said submission  

made by Mr. Dwivedi and Mr. Singh, since the need  

to implement the directions contained in the  

judgment does not cease upon the judgment being  

delivered. In order to enforce its orders and  

directions, the Supreme Court can take recourse to  

the powers vested in it under Article 142 of the  

Constitution to do complete justice to the parties.  

In such cases, the lis does not cease and the  

expression “matter pending before it” mentioned in  

Article 142 of the Constitution, would include  

matters in which orders of the Supreme Court were  

yet to be implemented, when particularly such  

orders were necessary for doing complete justice to  

the parties to the proceedings.  To take any other  

view would result in rendering the orders of the  

Supreme Court meaningless. In this regard,  

reference may be made to the Constitution Bench  

decision of this Court in Supreme     Court     Bar    

Association Vs. Union     of     India     &     Anr.   [(1998) 4 SCC  

56

Page 57

409], referred to hereinbefore, wherein the  

question before the Bench was the power of the  

Supreme Court to punish for contempt of itself  

under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the  

Constitution.  While considering the same and  

holding that the power vested in the Supreme Court  

under Article 142 should not be used to supplant  

substantive law applicable to a case, being  

curative in nature, their Lordships also observed  

that the plenary powers of this Court under Article  

142 of the Constitution are inherent in the Court  

and are complementary to those powers which are  

specifically conferred on the Court by various  

statutes, though are not limited by those statutes.  

This Court held that these powers also exist  

independent of the statutes with a view to doing  

complete justice between the parties.  This power  

exists as a separate and independent basis of  

jurisdiction, apart from the statutes, and stands  

upon the foundation for preventing injustice in the  

57

Page 58

process of litigation and to do complete justice  

between the parties.  This Court further observed  

that this plenary jurisdiction is thus the residual  

source of power which this Court may draw upon as  

necessary, whenever it is just and equitable to do  

so and, in particular, to ensure the observance of  

the due process of law, to do complete justice  

between the parties, while administering justice  

according to law. In the event the parties do not  

or refuse to abide by its decision, the Supreme  

Court would have no option, but to take recourse to  

the provisions of Article 129 of the Constitution  

or under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts  

Act, 1971.  

50. When a judgment has been delivered by this  

Court, it is the obligation of all citizens to act  

in aid thereof and to obey the decision and the  

directions contained therein, in view of the  

provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution,  

58

Page 59

until and unless the same are modified or recalled.  

In the said background, each of the Resolutions  

said to have been adopted at the purported meeting  

of the General Body of the SCBA on 16th January,  

2012, do not muster scrutiny and must be held to be  

in violation of Article 141 of the Constitution and  

cannot, therefore, be countenanced.  Apart from the  

fact that the agenda for the meeting did not  

include the matters in respect whereof the  

resolutions have been adopted, the resolutions  

themselves, being in flagrant violation of the  

judgment delivered by this Court on 26th September,  

2011, have to be set aside.  It is the duty of all  

the members of the SCBA to abide by and to give  

effect to the judgments of this Court and not to  

act in derogation thereof. The purported resolution  

expelling the three senior members of the  

Implementation Committee, appointed under the  

directions of this Court, from the primary  

membership of the Association, speaks volumes as to  

59

Page 60

the illegality thereof  and the deliberate and  

willful attempt on the part of the members, who are  

alleged to have passed such a resolution to over-

reach the orders of this Court. The same is  

sufficient ground to set aside the resolutions  

purportedly adopted at the meeting held on 16th  

January, 2012, notwithstanding the technical  

arguments advanced by Mr. Dwivedi and Mr. Singh.   

51. Since the members of the Bar are involved, we  

do not wish to add anything further, except to  

express the hope that in future this kind of unruly  

and undignified behaviour will not be repeated.  

Even if the members of the SCBA have any grievance  

against the judgment delivered on 26th September,  

2011, they have to obey the same in the scheme of  

judicial discipline.  

52. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2012 in Civil Appeal  

Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003 is allowed.  All the  

Resolutions purported to have been adopted in the  

60

Page 61

General Body Meeting of the SCBA held on 16th  

January, 2012, and the meeting of the Executive  

Committee are held to be invalid and are set aside.  

Consequently, the composition of the Office Bearers  

of the SCBA prior to the adoption of the alleged  

resolutions of 16th January, 2012, stand restored.  

The alleged resolution expelling the three senior  

members of the SCBA constituting the Implementation  

Committee appointed under the directions of this  

Court, is set aside. The Implementation Committee  

shall, therefore, continue with the work assigned  

to it for identification of the members of the SCBA  

eligible to vote in the elections in terms of the  

directions given in the judgment dated 26th  

September, 2011.  However, if any member of the  

SCBA is aggrieved by the methodology adopted by the  

Implementation Committee for identification of such  

eligible members, he/she may make a representation  

to the Executive Committee of the SCBA within a  

fortnight from date and if such a representation or  

61

Page 62

representations is or are received within the  

specified period, the Executive Committee of the  

SCBA will look into such objections and take a  

decision thereupon and, if necessary, to apply to  

the Court, before further steps are taken by the  

Implementation Committee  in regard to  

identification of members eligible to vote at the  

elections. For a period of two weeks, the  

Implementation Committee shall not take any further  

steps in the matter, and shall, thereafter, resume  

the work of identification of members of the SCBA  

eligible to vote on the instructions that may be  

given by the Executive Committee of the SCBA in  

this regard.  The process of identifying the  

members of the SCBA eligible to vote in the  

elections for selection of the members of the  

Executive Committee must be completed within four  

weeks from the date of individual objections  

received, if any, are decided finally.  Thereafter,  

the SCBA shall set the dates for the election  

62

Page 63

schedule, including publication of the list of  

members of the SCBA eligible to vote in the  

elections, so that the elections can be held once  

the final list is approved and published.   

53. We expect all the members of the SCBA to  

cooperate with the Implementation Committee and the  

Executive Committee of the SCBA to complete the  

publication of the list of members of the SCBA  

eligible to vote in the elections within the time  

specified, and, thereafter, to cooperate in the  

conducting of the elections for the election of the  

Office Bearers of the SCBA.   

54. I.A. No.1 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos.3401 and  

3402 of 2003 is thus disposed of.  Let copies of  

this order be made available to the President of  

the SCBA and the members of the Implementation  

Committee for immediate compliance. A copy of the  

operative portion of this judgment may also be put  

up on the web-site and Notice Board of the SCBA for  

63

Page 64

general information of all of its members. All  

connected IAs are also disposed of by this order.  

55. Having regard to the observations made  

hereinabove, the Contempt Petition No.45 of 2012,  

filed in the civil appeals by Dr. Parvin Kumar  

Mutreja, Advocate, and two others, is also disposed  

of by virtue of this order.   

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

………………………………………………………J.                             (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR) New Delhi Date: 07.05.2012   

64