Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3401 OF 2003

Supreme Court Bar Association and others       ... Appellants

Versus

B.D. Kaushik             ... Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3402 OF 2003

Supreme Court Bar Association       ... Appellant

Versus

A.K. Manchanda             ... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

J.M. Panchal, J.

Since  common  issues  for  determination  are  

involved in  Civil  Appeal  No.  3401 of  2003 and Civil

Appeal  No.  3402  of  2003,  this  Court  proposes  to  

dispose them of by this common judgment.

2. Civil  Appeal  No.  3401 of  2003 is filed by three  

appellants,  i.e.,  (1)  Supreme  Court  Bar  Association  

(Registered), through its Honorary Secretary Mr. Ashok  

Arora,  (2)  Shri  Ashok  Arora,  Honorary  Secretary  of  

Supreme Court Bar Association and (3) Ms. Sunita B.  

Rao,  Coordinator,  Implementation  Committee,  

Supreme  Court  Bar  Association  (for  short  “SCBA”),  

Tilak Marg, New Delhi.  It is directed against interim  

order  dated  April  5,  2003,  passed  by  learned  Civil  

Judge,  Delhi  below application filed under  Order  39  

Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure  

Code (CPC) filed in Civil Suit No. 101 of 2003.  Civil  

Appeal No. 3402 of 2003 is filed by Supreme Court Bar  

Association  through  its  Honorary  Secretary  against  

interim  order  dated  April  5,  2003,  passed  by  the  

learned Civil Judge below application filed under Order  

39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPC, filed in  

Civil Suit No. 101 of 2003.  By the common order, the  

appellants  are  restrained  from  implementing  the  

2

resolution dated February 18, 2003 amending Rule 18  

of  the  Rules  and  Regulations  of  SCBA till  the  final  

disposal of both the suits.

3. The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 3401 of 2003  

is Shri B.D. Kaushik whereas the respondent in Civil  

Appeal  No.  3402  of  2003  is  Shri  A.K.  Manchanda.  

Both the respondents are the advocates practicing in  

Delhi.  They are members of SCBA, Delhi High Court  

Bar  Association,  Delhi  Bar  Association,  Tis  Hazari  

Courts, Delhi, etc.  The appellant No. 1, i.e., Supreme  

Court Bar Association is a Society registered on August  

25,  1999 under  the  Societies  Registration Act,  1860  

and  its  Registration  No.  is  35478  of  1999.   The  

Registered  Office  of  the  Association  is  in  Supreme  

Court premises at New Delhi.  The provisions of  the  

Societies Registration Act, 1860 empower a society to  

frame  Memorandum  of  Association  and  Rules  and  

Regulations.   In  exercise  of  those  powers  the  

Association has framed Memorandum of Association of  

the SCBA as also the Rules and Regulations.  The aims  

and  objectives  of  the  Association  are  specified  in  

3

Clause 3 of the Memorandum of Association, which are  

as under: -

“3. AIMS  AND  OBJECTIVES:  The  Aims  and Objectives of the association are:

i) To promote upholding of rule of law;

ii) To  encourage  profession  of  law  in  India;

iii) To promote and protect the privileges,  interest and prestige of the association  and to promote union and cooperation  among the advocates practicing in the  court  and  other  associations  and  advocates;

iv) To  promote  and  maintain  high  standards  of  profession  among  members of the Bar;

v) To establish and maintain an adequate  library for the use of the members and  to  provide  other  facilities  and  convenience to the members;

vi) To watch the state of law, progress of  legislation  and  administration  of  justice and to take such steps as may  be  necessary  for  their  progress  and  reform;

vii) To  express  opinion  on  proposed  legislation  and  other  matters  of  interest and to make representation in  respect thereof;

viii) To take necessary steps to prevent and  remedy  any  abuse  of  law  or  mal- administration of justice;

4

ix) To  make  representation  from time  to  time  to  the  authorities  on  matters  affecting the Bar;

x) To  acquire  and  safeguard  the  rights  and privileges necessary or convenient  for the purpose of the association;

xi) To arrange for  raising funds for  legal  aid  and  to  do  everything  including  applying  of  funds  that  may  be  necessary to that end;

xii) To promote and participate in All India  Lawyers’  Association  and  activities  connected therewith;

xiii) To adopt all such matters as might be  necessary or incidental to the carrying  out of the aforesaid objects;

xiv) To  take  measures  including  founding  and  applying  of  funds  for  aid  to  deserving members of  the association  and its employees;

xv) To  conduct  and  hold  seminars,  symposia,  conference  on  issues  and  topics of interest to the legal profession  and to disseminate information in this  behalf; and

xvi) To promote the welfare of the members  of the association.”

The Rules and Regulations framed by the Association  

are known as Rules and Regulations of Supreme Court  

Bar Association.  Rule 3 of the Rules and Regulations  

defines certain phrases.  Rule 3(i) defines ‘Association’  

5

to mean the Supreme Court Bar Association.   There  

are  four  classes  of  Members as  specified  in  Rule  4.  

They  are  (i)  Resident  Members,  (ii)  Non-resident  

Members, (iii) Associate Members, and (iv) Non-Active  

Members.  As per Rule 3(ii) ‘Associate Member’ means  

an association of advocates practicing in a High Court  

or Judicial Commissioner’s Court and enrolled as such  

a Member.  Rule 3(iv) defines the term ‘Committee’ to  

mean  Executive  Committee  of  the  Bar  Association  

whereas Rule 3(v) defines the word ‘Court’ to mean the  

Supreme Court of India.  The term ‘Member’ is defined  

in Rule 3(vi) to mean a member of Association.  Sub-

rule (vi)(a) of Rule 3, which was inserted by resolution  

of Special General Body Meeting dated September 9,  

2010  retrospectively  with  effect  from  September  14,  

2009, defines ‘Temporary Member’ to mean a member  

other than a member within the meaning of Rule 3(vi).  

‘Non-Active Member’ is defined in Rule 3(viii) to mean a  

Member whose name is kept on the list of  Members  

notwithstanding  he  has  accepted  an  office  of  profit  

disentitling  him  to  practice.   The  phrase  ‘Resident  

6

Member’  is  defined in Rule  3(ix)  to  mean a member  

residing and practicing as an advocate in Delhi or its  

suburbs.  Rule 5 of the Rules and Regulations deals  

with fees, admission and subscription.

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,  will  be made a member, initially  on  

temporary basis for a period of two years.  It further  

provides  that  a  person  so  made  a  member  on  

temporary  basis  will  be  identified  as  temporary  

member and such temporary member will be entitled  

to avail the facilities of the Association such as library  

and  canteen  etc.,  but  he  will  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  and  to  be  issued  a  Library  Card.  

Explanation appended to  Rule  5(v)(b)  makes it  clear  

that ‘suitable’ means a person applying must fulfill all  

the criteria listed in the Rules and Regulations of the  

Association,  viz.,  Rule  5(v)  and  also  satisfy  the  

requirements  prescribed in the  prescribed form.   As  

7

per Rule 5(v)(c) at the end of two years period from the  

date  of  approval  of  temporary  membership  by  the  

Executive Committee, if such temporary member pays  

SCBA dues  without  any  default  during  such  period  

and  produces  the  proof  of  either  of  the  following  of  

requirements  before  the  Executive  Committee,  his  

name would be considered for being made a regular  

Member of the Association – (i) appearance in Supreme  

Court as lead counsel in at least five matters in each  

year  of  the  two  years  period,  or  (ii)  appearance  in  

Supreme Court  as  a  junior  advocate  appearing  with  

any  senior  advocate/advocate-on  record  in  at  least  

twenty matters in each year of the two years period,  

(iii) only such of the temporary members on satisfying  

the above requirements at the end of two years period  

would be made a member of the Association with an  

entitlement  to  all  the  privileges  of  the  Association  

including  the  right  to  contest  and  vote  and  Library  

Card  etc.,  else,  he/she  shall  continue  to  remain  a  

temporary member till such time he/she fulfills these  

conditions.

8

4. A requisition dated January 10, 2003 signed by  

343 Members was received in  the  Office  of  the  

SCBA  on  January  23,  2003.   By  the  said  

requisition an amendment was sought in Rule 18  

regarding the eligibility of the members to contest  

and vote at an election.  It was proposed that the  

member, who exercises his right to vote in any  

High  Court  or  District  Court,  Advocates’/Bar  

Association,  shall  not  be  eligible  to  contest  for  

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

elections.   It  was  further  proposed  that  every  

member  before  casting  his  vote  shall  in  a  

prescribed form give a declaration that he is not  

voting in any other election of advocates in the  

High  Court/District  Court  Bar  Association.   It  

was also proposed that  if  such a declaration is  

found  to  be  false,  it  shall  entail  automatic  

suspension  of  the  member  giving  such  false  

declaration  from  membership  of  SCBA  for  a  

period  of  three  years.   The  requisition  dated  

January  10,  2003  was  considered  in  the  

9

Executive Committee meeting held on February 1,  

2003 and it was decided to hold a special General  

Body Meeting on February 18, 2003 to consider  

the  requisition.   Rule  22  of  the  Rules  and  

Regulations of SCBA provides that the Executive  

Committee may call a General Body Meeting on  

seven days’ notice to the members whereas Rule  

23  stipulates  the  manner  in  which  notice  of  

meeting  has  to  be  given  to  a  member.  

Accordingly  notices  for  the  aforesaid  General  

Body  Meeting  were  issued  by  the  SCBA  on  

February 6, 2003.  The notices 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  at  Supreme  Court  

premises.  The notices were also sent to different  

Bar Associations at Delhi including the Delhi Bar  

Association.  On February 18, 2003 the General  

Body Meeting was convened wherein more than  

278 Members had participated.  Mr. Ved Sharma  

and Mr. Rajiv Khosla, Office Bearers/Members of  

10

the  District/Delhi  Bar  Association  had  

participated  and  had  spoken  against  the  

resolution  in  the  General  Body  Meeting.   After  

due deliberations and discussion, the resolution  

proposing  amendment  in  Rule  18  of  the  Rules  

was put to vote.  It was passed by majority of 85%  

of the members present and voting.  Thereafter, a  

meeting  of  the  Executive  Committee  was  

convened on March 3, 2003.  In the said meeting  

it  was  resolved  to  hold  election  of  the  Office  

Bearers/Executive Members for the next session  

and for the constitution of Election Committee.  It  

was further resolved to hold election on April 25,  

2003.  An election Committee of three members of  

the  SCBA  was  constituted  for  the  purposes  of  

conducting election.  Further in the said meeting  

a requisition signed by 237 Members of SCBA to  

recall  resolution  dated  February  18,  2003  was  

considered  and  dealt  with.   It  was  decided  to  

defer the consideration of the said resolution in  

view  of  the  fact  that  elections  were  declared.  

11

Moreover,  in  the  meeting  of  the  Executive  

Committee  held  on  March  10,  2003  it  was  

resolved  to  constitute  an  Implementation  

Committee to implement the resolution “One Bar  

One  Vote”,  which  was  adopted  in  the  General  

Body  Meeting  dated  February  18,  2003.   The  

notices of the election and about formation of the  

Implementation  Committee  were  sent  to  the  

Members  of  the  Bar  Association  on  March  11,  

2003  again  along  with  the  cause  list  and  

conveyed  also  by  displaying  the  same  on  the  

notice board of the SCBA.  On March 13, 2003,  

meeting  of  the  Implementation  Committee  was  

held and the declaration form was finalized and  

programme for implementation was also decided.  

The notices regarding declaration form were again  

issued on March 25, 2003.  Meanwhile, Mr. B.D.  

Kaushik, who is one of the members of the SCBA  

as  well  as  a  member  of  the  High  Court  Bar  

Association,  Delhi  Bar  Association,  Tis  Hazari  

Courts, filed Suit No. 100 of 2003 in the Court of  

12

Shri Sanjeev Jain, Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi,  

challenging validity of resolution dated February  

18, 2003.  He has sought a decree declaring that  

Resolution dated February 18, 2003, passed by  

the General Body Meeting of SCBA inserting Rule  

18-III,  is  illegal  and  ineffective.   He  had  also  

prayed  for  a  decree  of  perpetual  injunction  

restraining the SCBA and its Office Bearers from  

implementing the Resolution dated February 18,  

2003  in  the  elections  of  SCBA,  which  were  

proposed to be held on April 25, 2003.  Further,  

the prayer to restrain the SCBA and its election  

officers from debarring any of the members of the  

SCBA, who had already paid their  subscription  

from casting their votes in the ensuing elections  

was also sought.  Mr. A.K. Manchanda, another  

member of the SCBA, filed suit No. 101 of 2003 in  

the Court of Shri Sanjeev Jain, Commercial Civil  

Judge,  Delhi,  seeking  the  reliefs  which  were  

sought by Mr. B.D. Kaushik in his suit No. 100 of  

2003.

13

5. Mr. B.D. Kaushik and Mr. A.K. Manchanda, the  

plaintiffs  in  Suit  Nos.  100 of  2003 and 101 of  

2003 respectively, filed applications under Order  

39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the  

Code  of  Civil  Procedure  to  restrain  the  

defendants,  who  are  appellants  herein,  from  

implementing the Resolution dated February 18,  

2003 till the final disposal of the suits.  Both the  

applications were taken up together for hearing  

by  the  learned  Judge.   The  learned  Judge  

disposed of those applications seeking temporary  

injunction by common order dated April 5, 2003.  

By the said common order the applications filed  

by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2  

were allowed and the appellants were restrained  

from implementing the Resolution dated February  

18,  2003  amending  Rule  18  of  the  Rules  and  

Regulations of the SCBA till the final disposal of  

the  suits.   As  the  injunction  granted  by  the  

learned  Judge  had  far  reaching  repercussions,  

the appellants straightway approached this Court  

14

by  filing  Special  Leave  Petition  No.  D-7644  of  

2003 against order dated April  5,  2003 in Suit  

No.  100  of  2003,  passed  by  the  learned  Civil  

Judge, Delhi.  The SCBA also filed Special leave  

Petition No. D-7645 of 2003 against order dated  

April  5,  2003  in  Suit  No.  101  of  2003.   The  

matters  were  placed  before  this  Court  in  

mentioning  list  on  April  10,  2003.   This  Court  

had heard the then learned Attorney General and  

other learned senior advocates practicing in this  

Court.   The  matters  were  taken  on  Board  and  

straightway  leave  was  granted.   Pending  

proceedings, stay of the common order passed by  

the  trial  court  was also  granted.   It  was made  

clear  that  if  any  elections  were  held,  the  same  

shall be subject to the result of these appeals.  It  

was also clarified that the order shall be effective  

notwithstanding  any  other  order  made  by  any  

court or authority in any other proceedings filed  

or yet to be filed.  On leave being granted Special  

Leave Petition No. D-7644 of 2003 is numbered  

15

as Civil Appeal No. 3401 of 2003 whereas Special  

Leave Petition No. D-7645 of 2003 is numbered  

as Civil Appeal No. 3402 of 2003.

6. This  Court  had  appointed  Mr.  Ranjit  Kumar,  

learned senior counsel  practicing in this Court,  

as  Amicus  Curie  to  assist  the  Court  in  the  

matters.  This Court has also requested learned  

Attorney  General  Mr.  Goolam  Vahanvati  to  

express his views in the matters and to assist the  

Court.  Accordingly, this Court has heard learned  

Attorney  General  as  well  as  learned  senior  

counsel Mr. Ranjit  Kumar.  The Court has also  

heard Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal, who has appeared on  

behalf  of  the  appellants  as  well  as  Mr.  Dinesh  

Kumar Garg, learned advocate who appeared on  

behalf  of  the  original  plaintiffs.   This  being  a  

matter,  which  affects  the  learned  advocates  

practicing in this Court, the Court has also heard  

learned  senior  counsel  Mr.  P.P.  Rao,  former  

President  of  SCBA,  Mr.  Pravin  Parekh,  present  

President of  SCBA and Mr. Sushil  Kumar Jain,  

16

President of Association of Advocates-on-Record.  

The  Court  has  considered the  Memorandum of  

Association  of  SCBA  as  well  as  Rules  and  

Regulations of SCBA.

7. It is not disputed by any of the learned advocates  

appearing  in  the  matters  that  after  stay  of  

common  order  dated  April  5,  2003,  passed  in  

Civil Suit No. 100 of 2003 and Civil Suit No. 101  

of 2003 was granted by this Court on April 10,  

2003, elections of the office bearers of the SCBA  

have taken place and Rule 18 of the Rules and  

Regulations, as was amended by the Resolution  

dated February 18, 2003, has been implemented.

8. Article  145  (1)(a)  of  the  Constitution  empowers  

the Supreme Court to make Rules for regulating  

generally the practice and procedure of the Court  

including  Rules  as  to  the  persons  practicing  

before  the  Court.   In  exercise  of  this  

constitutional  power,  the  Supreme  Court  has  

framed Rules called Supreme Court Rules, 1966.  

17

Rule 2(1)(b) provides that an advocate-on-record  

to be the only person to “act” as well as to “plead”  

before  this  Court.   The  other  two categories  of  

persons,  namely,  “senior  advocate”  and  “non-

advocate-on-record”  can only  plead,  but  cannot  

act  on  behalf  of  the  client.   Their  

appearances/pleadings  in  a  case  before  this  

Court  cannot  be without  an advocate-on-record  

and  without  his  instructions.   Order  IV  of  the  

Supreme  Court  Rules,  1966  deals  with  

“advocates”.   Rule  1  states  that  subject  to  the  

provisions  of  the  Rules  only  those  advocates  

whose names are entered on the roll of any State  

Bar  Council,  maintained  under  the  Advocates  

Act, 1961, shall be entitled to appear and plead  

before  the  Court.   As  per  Rule  2(b)  certain  

restrictions have been placed on senior advocate  

who  is  recognized  as  such  under  Rule  2(a),  

mentioning  inter-alia  that  he  cannot  file  a  

vakalatnama or act  in any court or  tribunal  in  

India or accept instructions to draw pleadings or  

18

affidavits, etc.  Explanation (iii) appended to the  

Order  IV  defines  “junior”  to  mean  an  advocate  

other than a senior advocate.  Rule 6(a) provides  

that an advocate-on-record shall, on his filing a  

memorandum of appearance on behalf of a party  

accompanied by a vakalatnama duly executed by  

the party, is entitled to act as well as to plead for  

the  party  in the  matter  and to conduct  and to  

prosecute  before  the  Court  all  proceedings that  

may  be  taken  in  respect  of  the  said  matter.  

Clause (b) of  Rule 6 mentions that no advocate  

other  than  an  advocate-on-record  shall  be  

entitled to file an appearance or act for a party in  

the court.  Rule 10 of the Rules provides that no  

advocate other than an advocate-on-record shall  

appear  and  plead  in  any  matter  unless  he  is  

instructed  by  an  advocate-on-record,  whereas  

Rule 12 enables an advocate-on-record or a firm  

of  advocates  to  employ  one  or  more  clerks  to  

attend the registry for presenting or receiving any  

papers on behalf of the said advocate or firm of  

19

advocates.   Rule  12(2)  mandates  that  notice  of  

every  application  for  the  registration  of  a  clerk  

shall be given to the Secretary, SCBA, who shall  

be entitled to bring to the notice of the Registrar  

within seven days of the receipt of the notice any  

facts, which, in his opinion, may have a bearing  

on  the  suitability  of  the  clerk  to  be  registered.  

Rule 13(1) requires the Registrar to publish list of  

persons proved to his satisfaction by evidence of  

general repute or otherwise, habitually to act as  

touts to be known as list of touts.  Explanation  

(b)  appended  to  Rule  13(1)  mentions  that  the  

passing of a resolution by the SCBA or by High  

Court Bar Association declaring any person to be  

tout shall be evidence of general repute of such  

person for the purpose of this Rule.

9. The Advocates Act, 1961 provides for the creation  

of different State Bar Councils, whose one or the  

main function is to admit advocates on its rolls  

and to promote the growth of Bar Associations for  

the  purpose  of  effective  implementation  of  the  

20

welfare  schemes.   It  further  enables  the  Bar  

Councils to make their own rules.  Section 17 of  

the  Advocates Act  provides that  every Sate  Bar  

Council  shall  prepare  and  maintain  roll  of  

advocates.  Section 17(4) further states that no  

person shall  be enrolled as an advocate on the  

roll of more than one State Bar Council.  Section  

49 of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the Bar  

Council of India to make rules.  In exercise of the  

said  power  Bar  Council  of  India  has  framed  

Rules.  Chapter III of Bar Council Rules provides  

that every advocate shall be under an obligation  

to ensure that his name appears on the roll of the  

State  Bar  Council  in  whose  jurisdiction  he  

ordinarily practices and if that advocate does not  

apply for transfer of his name to the roll of State  

Bar  Council  within  whose  jurisdiction  he  

ordinarily practices within six months of the start  

of  such practice,  it  shall  be deemed that  he  is  

guilty of professional misconduct.  Section 34 of  

the Advocates Act, 1961 also empowers the High  

21

Courts  to  make  Rules  regarding  the  advocate  

practicing  in  the  High  Court  and  courts  

subordinate thereto.

10. The  learned  counsel,  appearing  in  the  matters,  

pointed out to the Court that problem of bogus  

voting  in  the  election of  office  bearers of  SCBA  

started  since  the  year  1978.   According  to  the  

learned counsel, in the year 1978, 101 Members  

contested  election  for  the  post  of  Members  of  

Executive Committee.  The grievance made by the  

learned counsel  was that  those  advocates,  who  

were not regularly practicing in this Court, were  

enrolled as Members of the SCBA only to vote at  

the  election  of  office  bearers  of  the  SCBA.  

According to the learned counsel, the advocates,  

who have been enrolled as Members of the SCBA  

are  practicing  either  at  Kanpur  or  at  Gurgaon  

and other courts situated in India, but they never  

practice in this Court regularly nor are even able  

to  recognize  the  Hon’ble  Judges  of  this  Court.  

The  learned  counsel  emphasized  that  those  

22

advocates, who are not practicing in this Court  

and are enrolled as members of the SCBA, have  

outnumbered  the  actual  practitioners  in  this  

Court and do not permit the actual practitioners  

to  be  office  bearers  of  the  SCBA.   Thus  the  

learned advocates appearing in the matters have  

called upon this  Court to consider the problem  

posed  in  the  appeals  in  the  light  of  facts  

mentioned by them.

11. The Supreme Court Bar Association, as the name  

suggests, is a society primarily meant to promote  

the welfare of the advocates generally practicing  

in  the  Supreme  Court.   The  name,  i.e.,  the  

Supreme  Court  Bar  Association  was  formally  

registered  under  the  Societies  Registration  Act,  

1860 only on August 25, 1999.  One of the prime  

objectives  of  the  SCBA  is  to  establish  and  

maintain  adequate  library  for  the  use  of  the  

members  and  to  provide  other  facilities  and  

convenience  of  the  members.   Thus,  the  

formation of the SCBA is in the nature of aid to  

23

the  Advocates  Act,  1961  and  other  relevant  

statutes including Article 145 of the Constitution.  

12. There is no manner of doubt that court annexed  

Bar  Associations  constitute  a  separate  class  

different from other lawyers associations such as  

Lawyers’ Forum, All India Advocates’ Association,  

etc.  as  they  are  always  recognized  by  the  

concerned  court.   Court  annexed  Bar  

Associations function as part of the machinery for  

administration of  justice.   As is  said often,  the  

Bench and Bar are like two wheels of a chariot  

and one cannot function without the other.  The  

court  annexed  Bar  Associations  start  with  the  

name of the court as part of the name of the Bar  

Association  concerned.   That  is  why  we  have  

Supreme  Court  Bar  Association,  Tis  Hazari  

District  Court  Bar  Association,  etc.   The  very  

nature  of  such  a  Bar  Association  necessarily  

means  and  implies  that  it  is  an  association  

representing members regularly practicing in the  

court  and responsible  for  proper conduct  of  its  

24

members  in  the  court  and  for  ensuring  proper  

assistance to the court.  In consideration thereof,  

the  court  provides  space  for  office  of  the  

association,  library  and  all  necessary  facilities  

like chambers at concessional rates for members  

regularly practicing in the court,  parking place,  

canteen besides several other amenities.  In the  

functions  organized  by  the  court  annexed  Bar  

Associations the Judges participate and exchange  

views and ascertain the problems, if any, to solve  

them  and  vice-versa.   There  is  thus  regular  

interaction  between  the  members  of  the  Bar  

Association  and  the  Judges.   The  regular  

practitioners are treated as officers of  the court  

and are shown due consideration.

13. Enrolment  of  advocates  not  practicing  regularly  

in  the  court  is  inconsistent  with  the  main aim  

and  object  of  the  Association.   No  court  can  

provide  chambers  or  other  facilities  for  such  

outside  advocates,  who  are  not  regular  

practitioners.   Neither  the  Association  nor  the  

25

court  can  deal  with  them  effectively  if  they  

commit  any  wrong.   There  are  sufficient  

indications  in  the  Memorandum  of  Association  

and the Rules and Regulations of  SCBA, which  

indicate  that  the  Association  mainly  tries  to  

promote and protect the privileges, interest and  

prestige of the Association and to promote union  

and cooperation among the advocates practicing  

in the court and other associations of advocates.  

This is quite evident if  one refers to sub-clause  

(iii) of clause (3) of the Aims and Objectives of the  

Association.   It  is  significant  to  note  that  the  

signatories  of  the  Memorandum of  Association,  

namely,  Members  of  the  Executive  Committee,  

whose  names  are  mentioned,  are  all  regular  

practitioners, who got the Association registered  

under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.  Mr.  

P.P.  Rao,  learned  senior  counsel  has  given  all  

credit for registration of Association to Shri K.K.  

Venugopal, one of the senior-most counsel of this  

Court.

26

14. Rule 6 of the Rules and Regulations of the SCBA  

mentions  the  duties  of  Members.   It  inter  alia  

provides  that  (i)  a  member  shall  endeavour  to  

provide  full  assistance  to  the  court  and  

competent  representation  to  a  client,  (iii)  a  

member  shall  not  knowingly  (a)  make  a  false  

statement of material fact or of law to the court,  

(b) shall not seek to influence the court or Judges  

or officers of the court in any matter by means  

prohibited by law or  by false  representation on  

behalf  of  his  client  nor  shall  such  member  

communicate  with  such  persons  ex-parte  or  

engage in conduct intending to bring disrepute to  

the  functioning  of  the  court.   Rule  6(iii)(c)  

provides that a member of the Association shall  

participate  in  serving  those  persons/groups  of  

persons who are unable to pay all or portion of  

reasonable  fees  or  who  are  unable  to  obtain  

representation  by  counsel.   Clause  (c)  of  Rule  

6(iii)  inter  alia  states  that  a  member  may  

discharge his duty to serve those persons who are  

27

unable to pay all or portions of reasonable fees by  

providing professional services at no fees or at a  

substantially  reduced  fee.   A  member  of  the  

Association  has  to  charge  reasonable  fees  from  

his  client  which  has  to  be  determined  on  the  

basis  of  the  time  and  labour  spent  over  the  

matter and is not entitled to charge a contingent  

fee.   Thus duties of  members contemplate  that  

the members should be regular practitioners in  

the Supreme Court.

15. As noticed earlier, no person can be enrolled as  

an advocate on the roll of  more than one State  

Bar Council.  A citizen of India is entitled to cast  

his vote at an election of Legislative Assembly or  

an election of M.P. only in the constituency where  

his name appears as a voter in the voting list and  

he  cannot  claim right  to  vote  at  another  place  

where  he  may  be  residing  because  of  his  

occupation,  service,  etc.   Thus “one person one  

vote” is recognized statutorily since long.  Viewed  

in the light of these facts, the concept of voting  

28

introduced by amendment of Rule 18 of the Rules  

and Regulations of the SCBA cannot be regarded  

as illegal or unconstitutional.  It is well settled by  

catena of reported decisions of this Court that the  

right to vote is not an absolute right.   Right to  

vote  or  to  contest  election  is  neither  a  

Fundamental Right nor a common law right, but  

it is purely a statutory right governed by statute/  

rules/regulations.   The  right  to  contest  an  

election and to vote can always be restricted or  

abridged,  if  statute/  rules  or  regulations  

prescribe so.  Voting right restrictions also existed  

in Rule 18 and 18A before Rule 18 was amended.  

By amendment a further restriction is imposed by  

the  Resolution  adopted  in  the  General  Body  

Meeting.   

16. The  argument  that  by  the  said  amendment  of  

Rule 18 the Aims and Objects of  the SCBA are  

amended without prior approval of the Registrar  

of  Societies  and,  therefore,  the  same  is  illegal,  

cannot be accepted.  The impugned order makes  

29

it  more than clear that this ground has heavily  

weighed with the learned Judge in granting the  

injunction.   The  substance  and purpose  of  the  

amendment  made in Rule  18 of  the  Rules and  

Regulations of the SCBA cannot be lost site of.  It  

does not affect any of the aims and objectives of  

the  SCBA.   On  the  contrary,  it  promotes  and  

protects  privileges,  interest  and  prestige  of  the  

SCBA.   There  is  no  manner  of  doubt  that  the  

amended  Rule  18  promotes  union  and  

cooperation  among  the  advocates  practicing  in  

this Court and this is one of the prime aims and  

objectives of forming the SCBA.  The SCBA exists  

for the purpose of promoting the interest of the  

Supreme  Court  of  India  as  well  as  that  of  

advocates regularly practicing in the Court  and  

not  of  the  advocates,  who  are  not  regularly  

practicing in the Court.   

17. It  has  been rightly  pointed  out  by  the  learned  

counsel for the appellant that restrictions placed  

on  right  of  voting  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  

30

altering or amending Aims and Objects of SCBA.  

The  Aims  and  Objects  of  SCBA  have  been  

enumerated in earlier part of this judgment.  The  

basic principle underlying the amendment of Rule  

18 is that those advocates who are not practicing  

regularly  in  this  Court  cannot  be  permitted  to  

take over the affairs of the SCBA nor on ransom.  

One of the Aims and Objects of the SCBA is to  

promote and protect the privileges, interest and  

prestige  of  the  Association  whereas  another  

objective  is  to  promote  and  maintain  high  

standards of  profession among members of  the  

Bar.   To  achieve  these  objectives  Rule  18  is  

amended.   It  is  wrong  to  hold  that  

limitations/restrictions on the exercise of right to  

vote and contest the elections amount to altering  

and/or  amending  and/  or  changing  Aims  and  

Objects of the SCBA and this could not have been  

done without the consent of Registrar as provided  

in Societies Registration Act, 1860.

31

18. Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860  

invests a society with the power to frame rules/  

regulations  to  govern  the  body  of  any  society  

under  the  Act,  which  has  been established  for  

any particular purpose or purposes.  In built in it  

is the authority to alter or abridge such power.  If  

such a wide power is conferred including power to  

alter,  amend  or  abridge  the  purpose  itself,  it  

could  never  be  successfully  contended that  the  

power to amend, vary or rescind the rules does  

not exist in such society.

19. As noticed earlier ‘Associate Member’ means an  

association  of  advocates  practicing  in  a  High  

Court  or  Judicial  Commissioners’  Court  and  

enrolled as such a member.  As an association of  

advocates  cannot  practice  in  a  High  Court  or  

Judicial Commissioners’ Court, it is obvious that  

an associate member is a member of association  

of  advocates  practicing  in  a  High  Court  and  

enrolled  as  such  a  Member.   The  intention,  

therefore, is obvious that it is only an advocate,  

32

who is practicing in a High Court or in a court of  

Judicial  Commissioner  and  enrolled  as  a  

member,  who  is  entitled  to  the  status  of  an  

‘Associate Member’ for the purpose of the Rules  

and Regulations of the SCBA.  When it comes to  

the  question  of  voting  or  contesting  for  an  

election,  Rule  18(1)(iv)  declares  that  non-active  

members and associate members shall not have  

right to vote.  It is, therefore, clear that the SCBA  

is constituted primarily for those advocates who  

are  regularly  practicing  in  the  Supreme  Court.  

Other advocates can become non-resident senior  

members,  non-resident  members,  associate  

members and non-active members, but they will  

not be eligible to vote much less to contest the  

election.   Thus,  the  amendment  in  Rule  18  is  

wholly consistent with the aims and objectives of  

the SCBA.

20. This Court further finds that in the application  

filed  by  the  respondents/plaintiffs  in  each  suit  

under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section  

33

151  CPC,  injunction  against  the  appellants  to  

restrain them from implementing resolution dated  

February  18,  2003  amending  Rule  18  of  the  

Rules  and  Regulations  of  SCBA  till  the  final  

disposal  of  the  suits,  was  claimed.   A  bare  

perusal of the plaint of Civil Suit No. 100 of 2003  

indicates  that  the  respondent  has  claimed  

following reliefs in the plaint: -

“a. A decree of declaration declaring that  the resolution dated 18.2.2003 passed  by the alleged General Body Meeting of  Supreme  Court  Bar  Association  amending  Rule  18-III  is  illegal  and  ineffective;

b. pass  a  decree  of  perpetual  injunction  restraining  the  defendant  No.  1  Association and its  office  bearers from  implementing  the  resolution  dated  18.2.2003  in  the  ensuing  elections  of  Supreme  Court  Bar  Association  proposed to be held on 25.4.2003;

c. This Hon’ble Court may also be pleased  to  restrain  the  defendant  No.  1  association,  its  election  officer(s)  from  debarring  any  of  the  members  of  Supreme  Court  Bar  Association  who  have  already  paid  their  subscription  from casting  their  vote  in  the  ensuing  elections.

d. Any  other  proper  and  further  order  which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may  

34

kindly  be  passed  in  favour  of  the  plaintiff and against the defendants.”

Thus, the learned Judge has decreed the suit partially  

by granting injunction without adjudicating rival claims  

of  the  parties.   This  Court  in  catena  of  reported  

decisions has laid down the principle that interim relief,  

which has tendency to allow the final relief claimed in  

the  proceedings,  should  not  be  granted  lightly.   No  

special circumstances have been mentioned in the two  

impugned orders which would justify decreeing the suits  

at  interim  stage.   The  relief  granted  by  the  learned  

Judge at the interim stage was not  warranted by the  

facts of the case at all.  Therefore, the impugned orders  

are also liable to be set aside on this ground.

21. Further,  Order  39  Rule  1  deals  with  cases  in  

which temporary injunction may be granted and  

inter  alia  provides  that  where  in  any  suit  it  is  

proved  by  affidavit  or  otherwise  –  (a)  that  any  

property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being  

wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the  

35

suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree,  

(b)  that  the  defendant  threatens,  or  intends,  to  

remove or dispose of his property with a view to  

defrauding  his  creditors,  (c)  that  the  defendant  

threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise  

cause  injury  to  the  plaintiff  in  relation  to  any  

property in dispute in the suit, the Court may, by  

order,  grant  a  temporary  injunction  to  restrain  

such  act,  or  make  such  other  order  for  the  

purpose  of  staying  and preventing  the  wasting,  

damaging, alienation, sale removal or disposition  

of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or  

otherwise  causing  injury  to  the  plaintiff  in  

relation to any property in dispute in the suit as  

the Court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit  

or until further orders.

Order 39 Rule 2 deals with injunction to restrain  

repetition  or  continuance  of  breach  and  inter  alia  

provides that in any suit for restraining the defendant  

from committing a breach of contract or other injury of  

any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit  

36

or  not,  the  plaintiff  may,  at  any  time  after  the  

commencement  of  the  suit  and  either  before  or  after  

judgment, apply to the court for a temporary injunction  

to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of  

contract  or  injury  complained  of,  or  any  breach  of  

contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same  

contract or relating to the same property or right.

As is well-known Section 151 deals with saving of  

inherent powers of the Court and provides that nothing  

in  Civil  Procedure  Code  shall  be  deemed  to  limit  or  

otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make  

such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice  

or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.

22. It  hardly  needs  to  be  emphasized  that  in  any  

Body  governed  by  democratic  principles,  no  

member has a right to claim an injunction so as  

to stall  the formation of  the Governing Body of  

the Association.  No such right exists in election  

matters since exercise of  a right conferred by a  

rule  is  always  subject  to  the  qualifications  

37

prescribed  and  limitations  imposed  thereunder.  

The  contention  of  the  respondents  that  the  

amendment to Rule whereunder the right to be  

eligible to contest for any post for the Association  

or the eligibility to cast the vote at the election,  

takes away the right completely, is misconceived  

since by the amendment the right  is  not  taken  

away  but  is  preserved  subject  to  certain  

restrictions on its exercise and this could always  

be done.   

23. It is important to notice that what the impugned  

Rule does is that it only declares the eligibility of  

a member to contest and vote and does not take  

away ipso facto the right to vote.  The impugned  

Rule  only  prescribes  the  eligibility  or  makes  a  

person  ineligible  in  the  circumstances  stated  

therein  which  is  the  nature  of  a  reasonable  

restriction  as  the  right  to  vote  is  neither  a  

common law right nor Fundamental Right but a  

statutory right prescribed by the statute as has  

been  held  in  several  reported  decisions  of  this  

38

Court.  What is necessary to be noticed here is  

that the impugned clause in the Rule is not the  

only  clause  prescribing  ineligibility  to  vote  as  

there are other eligibility conditions or ineligibility  

restrictions within Rule 18, which may also make  

a  person  ineligible  to  vote.   The  challenge,  

therefore, to this ineligibility of filing a declaration  

not  to  vote  at  the  elections  to  any  other  Bar  

Association is erroneous in law.  If a person is the  

member of several associations of advocates and  

wants  to  participate  in  the  affairs  of  different  

associations  of  which  he/she  is  a  member,  

he/she  may  not  be  in  a  position  to  be  really  

involved in the affairs of all associations of which  

he/she  is  the  member.   A  person  who  is  a  

member of more than one association would form  

a different class than the person who is a member  

of  only  one  association  of  lawyers,  particularly,  

the  association  of  the  Court  in  which  he/she  

regularly practices.  Though an advocate can be  

member of several associations, the right to form  

39

an association or be a member of an association  

does not necessarily include the right to vote at  

every such association’s General Body Meeting or  

election meetings and the rules of the association  

can circumscribe the voting rights of members of  

such  association  by  prescribing  eligibility  and  

ineligibility.  It is an admitted position that SCBA  

today has temporary members who do not have a  

right to vote.  Similarly, non-active members and  

associate members do not  have a right to vote.  

Thus, these are all reasonable restrictions which  

have  been  prescribed  and  are  not  open  to  

challenge  as  there  is  no  Fundamental  Right  to  

vote.   After  all  a  Bar  Association  in  a  court  is  

formed for the purpose of seeing that all lawyers  

practicing  normally  and  regularly  in  that  court  

work under one umbrella and be in a position to  

interact with the Judges or officials of that court  

for  any  grievance  through  their  elected  body  

because individual lawyers are not supposed nor  

it is proper for them to interact with the Judges  

40

so as to preserve and secure the independence of  

judiciary.   

24. The argument  of  the  respondents  was that  the  

right  to  vote  available  to  a  member  has  been  

infringed or curtailed but this argument does not  

appear to be correct for  the simple reason that  

though  the  Rule  is  couched  in  a  negative  

language, it  preserves the right of a Member to  

either contest or to cast his vote in the election  

subject to his exercising an option to vote only in  

the  SCBA  and  not  in  any  High  Court/District  

Court Bar Association.

This is amply clear from the amended provision  

whereunder  every  member  before  casting  his  vote,  is  

required, in the prescribed form, to give a declaration  

that  he  has  not  voted  in  any  other  election  of  any  

advocates  in  the  High  Court/District  Court  Bar  

Association.   The restriction on the right  to vote  of  a  

member  is  provided  with  an  avowed  object  of  better  

welfare  and  convenience  of  those  advocates,  who  are  

41

regularly practicing in this Court and who are directly  

concerned with day-to-day affairs of the Supreme Court.  

Such  restriction  in  fact  subserves  Article  145  of  the  

Constitution and other statutory provisions relating to  

advocates.   As  right  to  vote  is  not  an  absolute  right  

recognized in common law and is always subject to the  

statute/Rules  creating  such  rights,  it  is  equally  well  

settled that the exercise of such right could always be  

subject to the provisions of the Statute/Rules creating  

it.  Under the circumstances, the contention advanced  

by the respondents that their right to vote was either  

curtailed  or  abridged  should  not  have  been  lightly  

accepted by the learned Judge.

25. The right to form an association is recognized as  

a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(c) of the  

Constitution.  The provision in the SCBA Rules  

for prescribing eligibility to vote at only one of the  

associations,  i.e.,  “One  Bar  One  Vote”  is  a  

prescription which is in furtherance of the right  

to  form association and be able  to  manage the  

affairs of the association by those who regularly  

42

practice in the courts of which the association is  

formed  and  of  which  the  members  are  regular  

practitioners.   It  will  not  be  out  of  place  to  

mention that a person having become ineligible to  

vote  because  of  having  voted  at  another  

association  election  does  not  (a)  lose  the  

membership of the association nor (b) is in any  

way hampered or restricted in the use of  other  

facilities,  which  the  association  provides  to  its  

members  such  as  library,  canteen,  

telecommunication,  car  parking,  etc.    Having  

regard to the aims and objects as set out in the  

Memorandum  of  Association,  it  is  evident  that  

one of the primary objectives of formation of the  

association was to have a Body of Advocates who  

are  attached  to  and  practicing  in  the  Supreme  

Court of India.  In  Smt. Damyanti Naranga vs.  

The Union of India and others (1971)  1 SCC  

678, this Court has authoritatively laid down that  

the  right  to  form  an  association  necessarily  

implies that persons forming the association have  

43

also the right to continue to be associated with  

only  those  whom they  voluntarily  admit  in  the  

association.   In  Zoroastrian  Cooperative  

Housing  Society  Ltd.  and  others vs.  District  

Registrar,  Cooperative  Societies  (Urban)  and  

others (2005)  5  SCC  632,  in  the  context  of  

Fundamental  Right  to  form  an  association  

excluding others and the right of the Members of  

the association to keep others out,  it  has been  

held in para 17 at page 651 as under: -

“Section 24 of the Act, no doubt, speaks of  open membership, but Section 24(1) makes  it  clear  that  open  membership  is  the  membership  of  a  person  duly  qualified  therefore  under  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  the Rules and the bye-laws of the Society.  In  other  words,  Section  24(1)  does  not  contemplate  an open membership dehorns  the bye-laws of the society.  Nor do we find  anything  in  the  Act  which  precludes  a  society  from prescribing a qualification for  membership based on a belief, a persuasion  or a religion for that matter.  Section 30(2)  of  the  Act  even places  restrictions  on  the  right of a member to transfer his right.  In  fact,  the  individual  right  of  the  member,  Respondent  2,  has  got  submerged  in  the  collective right  of  the Society.   In  State  of   U.P.  v.  C.O.D.  Chheoki  Employees’  Coop.   Society  Ltd. (1997)  3 SCC 681, this  Court  after referring to  Daman Singh vs.  State  of   

44

Punjab (1985) 2 SCC 670, held in para 16  that: (SCC p. 691)

“16. Thus,  it  is  settled  law  that  no  citizen has a fundamental right under  Article 19(1)(c) to become a member of  a  cooperative  society.   His  right  is  governed  by  the  provisions  of  the  statute.  So, the right to become or to  continue being a member of the society  is a statutory right.  On fulfillment of  the qualifications prescribed to become  a member and for being a member of  the  society  and  on  admission,  he  becomes  a  member.   His  being  a  member of the society is subject to the  operation  of  the  Act,  rules  and  bye- laws applicable from time to time.  A  member  of  the  society  has  no  independent right qua the society and  it  is  the  society  that  is  entitled  to  represent  as  the  corporate  aggregate.  No  individual  member  is  entitled  to  assail  the  constitutionality  of  the  provisions  of  the  Act,  rules  and  the  bye-laws as he has his right under the  Act,  rules  and  the  bye-laws  and  is  subject  to  its  operation.   The  stream  cannot rise higher than the source.”

26. In  matters  of  internal  management  of  an  

association, the courts normally do not interfere,  

leaving  it  open  to  the  association  and  its  

members to frame a particular bye-law,  rule  or  

regulation which may provide for eligibility and or  

45

qualification  for  the  membership  and/or  

providing  for  limitations/restrictions  on  the  

exercise of any right by and as a member of the  

said association.

It  is  well  settled  legal  proposition  that  once  a  

person becomes a member of  the  association,  such a  

person looses his individuality qua the association and  

he has no individual rights except those given to him by  

the  rules  and  regulations  and/or  bye-laws  of  the  

association.

27. It should have been noticed by the learned Judge  

that  the  plaintiffs/respondents  claimed  

injunction on the basis that the right to contest  

and vote  in the election of  the SCBA had been  

adversely  affected  and,  therefore,  they  invoked  

the provisions of  Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read  

with Section 151 CPC.  The amended Rule 18 has  

not taken away right to vote completely but has  

put  restrictions  to  promote  and  protect  the  

privileges,  interest  and  prestige  of  the  SCBA.  

46

Rule  18  was  also  amended  to  promote  and  

maintain  high  standards  of  profession  amongst  

Members of the Bar.  Having regard to the objects  

of  amendment  of  Rule  18,  this  Court  is  of  the  

opinion that the learned Judge should not have  

granted  the  injunction  as  claimed  by  the  

plaintiffs/respondents for mere asking.

28. Originally enacted Rule 18 provided for eligibility  

of  members  to  contest  and  vote  at/in  the  

elections.  An important provision is contained in  

Rule  18(II)(4)  to  the  effect  that  non-active  

members and associate members shall not have  

the right to vote.  In light of the above provisions  

of the Rules, more particularly, Rule 5(1)(v), the  

eligibility of every advocate entitled to practice law  

for  being  a  member of  the  Supreme Court  Bar  

Association is subject to the provisions of the said  

Rules.   In other  words,  an absolute  right  as is  

sought  to  be  asserted  by  the  

plaintiffs/respondents is controlled by conditions,  

47

qualifications,  disqualifications  and  restrictions  

imposed by the said Rules.

29. The  power  to  amend  Rules  is  specifically  

conferred  under  Rule  39  whereunder  it  is  

provided that the Rules and the bye-laws of the  

Association  shall  be  subject  to  such conditions  

and/or modifications, as may from time to time,  

by  resolution  passed  by  at  least  2/3rd of  the  

Members present and voting at the General Body  

Meeting.  Therefore, any part of the Rules could  

always  be  amended.   As  noticed  earlier,  SCBA  

being  a  Society  registered  under  the  Societies  

Registration Act, is governed by its Memorandum  

of Association.  The said Association is entitled to  

have its own Rules and Regulations.  In fact, it is  

contemplated  in  the  Act  that  a  Committee  of  

management  can be  constituted to  manage  the  

affairs of the Society as specified in the Rules and  

Regulations.  The Memorandum of Association is  

a contract amongst the members of the Society,  

which though required to be registered under the  

48

Statute, does not acquire any statutory character.  

These are rules which govern internal control and  

management  of  the  Society.   The  authority  to  

frame,  amend,  vary  and  rescind  such  rules,  

undoubtedly,  vests  in  the  General  Body  of  the  

Members of the Society.  The power to amend the  

rules is implicit in the power to frame rules.   

30. Yet, another ground of attack in the suits filed by  

the  respondents  is  with  reference  to  notice  of  

meetings and the manner of holding of meetings  

including  Special  General  Meeting.   The  record  

produced by the SCBA before this Court indicates  

that  the  meeting in which the  amendment was  

carried out  in Rule  18 was held in  accordance  

with Rule  22 because it  was a Special  General  

Meeting.   The  holding  of  meetings  including  

Special General Meeting is governed by Rules 21,  

22 and 23, which read as under: -

“21. MEETINGS

The  Annual  General  Meeting  of  the  Association shall ordinarily be held not later  than 15th day of May every year.  Not less  

49

than 15 days  notice  shall  be given to  the  members  of  the  Annual  General  Meeting.  The  following  shall  along  with  other  business  that  may  be  required  to  be  transacted, be included in the agenda of the  Annual General Meeting.

a) Auditor’s  Report  on  the  Account  and  Balance Sheet of Budget estimate;

b) Report of the Secretary on the activities of  the terms which will include report of the  work  of  committee  other  than  the  Executive Committee;

c) The  election  of  the  officers  of  the  Association  and  Members  of  Executive  Committee  or  other  committees  and  appointment of Auditors;

d) The approval of the revenue account and  the  balance  sheet  of  the  affairs  of  the  Association  as  on  31st March  of  the  previous year duly passed.

22. SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING

The Committee may call a General Meeting  on 7 days notice to the Members provided  that  a  Special  General  Meeting  may  be  called on a shorter notice.

Provided that the Secretary may call an  emergent  General  Meeting  on  any  day  by  affixing a notice to that effect on the notice  board of the Association and circulating the  same  to  the  Members  as  can  be  conveniently informed.

The  Committee  shall  call  a  General  Meeting or a Special General Meeting upon  

50

the requisition given in writing by at least  150 Members of the Association in respect  of any matter.  The requisition specified the  matter  or  question  to  be  laid  before  the  meeting  and  shall  be  addressed  to  the  Secretary.  The meeting shall be called not  later than 2 weeks after the receipt of such  requisition.   The  quorum  at  the  Annual  General Meeting or a General Meeting or a  Special  General  Meeting  shall  be  50  Members.  In absence of such quorum the  meeting  shall  stand  adjourned  to  such  a  date and time as the Chairman may appoint  and for  such adjourn meeting  no  quorum  will be necessary.

23. NOTICE OF MEETING

1. The  notice  of  the  Annual  General  Meeting or any of the Special Meeting shall  be given by: -

(a) Circulating  the  notice,  to  such  members  as  can  conveniently  be  informed in that way;

(b) Sending  out  such  notices  by  post  addressed  to  every  non-resident and  associate  member  and  to  every  resident  member  who  may  have  required  the  Secretary  to  send  the  notice in this way and has registered  his  address  in  the  office  of  the  Association;

The  notice  of  the  meeting  other  than  the  Annual General Meeting shall be given by:

(a)Affixing the notice on the notice board of  the Association;

(b)Circulating  the  notice  to  such members  as may be conveniently informed in that  way.”

51

As can be seen from the bare reading of these Rules,  

notice by post has to go to non-resident members and to  

resident members only if request in writing is made to  

the Secretary that notices should be sent to him by post  

at his registered address, otherwise, notice by affixation  

on notice board and by circulating the notice, normally  

done with cause list is sufficient notice.  The record does  

not indicate at all that any of the plaintiffs/respondents  

had given any notice to the Secretary of SCBA that he  

should be informed individually by a notice in writing of  

holding of any meeting by sending it at his registered  

address.  There is weighty reason as to why notice by  

affixation  on  the  notice  board  and  by  circulating  the  

notice with cause list should be regarded as sufficient  

notice.  This is obviously so because advocate members  

normally practicing in this Court would be made aware  

by  these  methods  of  notice.   Thus  the  ground  of  

improper  holding  of  the  meeting  or  lack of  service  of  

notice  upon  the  plaintiffs/respondents  are  devoid  of  

52

merits and could not have been taken into consideration  

while granting injunction claimed by them.

31. On page  2  of  the  paper  book  the  learned  trial  

judge has mentioned details of the plaint and has  

categorically stated as under: -

“It is disclosed in the plaint that members of  defendant  No.  1  are  scattered  in  various  parts  of  the  country  including  Delhi  and  majority of them do not visit the SCBA office  on regular basis.”

In para 3 of the plaint it is averred as under: -

“Since  all  the  members  including  the  plaintiff do not visit the Supreme Court and  office of the defendant No. 1 Association on  regular basis, they do not have an occasion  to acquaint themselves about all the notices  and circulars put up by the defendant No. 1  Association  on  its  notice  boards  in  the  Supreme Court building.”

Further, at page 19 of the paper book a finding has been  

arrived at by the trial court as under: -

“Most  of  the  members  do  not  ordinarily  practice in the Supreme Court of India and  are members of other association.”

53

In the light of above pleadings, it is quite clear that the  

plaintiffs/respondents  who  were  seeking  to  challenge  

the impugned Rule which prescribed an eligibility clause  

to enable them to vote, have candidly admitted that they  

are not regular practitioners of the Supreme Court nor  

do they attend the Supreme Court on regular basis nor  

are  aware  of  the  circulars circulated by  the  SCBA or  

pasted on the information board of the SCBA.  This is  

something which has been totally overlooked by the trial  

court  in  arriving  at  a  conclusion  in  favour  of  the  

plaintiffs/respondents without examining the true and  

correct import of Rule 23 of the Rules, which prescribes  

the method of giving notice of the meeting.  There is no  

manner of doubt that the trial court has committed an  

error  in  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  in  any  case  

individual notice was required to be given when the rule  

does not warrant giving of any such individual notice.   

32. The three reasons indicated by the learned Judge  

in the impugned orders for grant of injunction are  

not  sustainable  at  all  and,  therefore,  the  

impugned orders will have to be set aside.

54

33. Further, the appellants had rightly pointed out to  

the  learned  Judge  that  election  process  had  

already  started  and,  therefore,  injunction,  as  

claimed, should not be granted.  Since 1952 this  

Court  has  authoritatively  laid  down  that  once  

election process has started the courts should not  

ordinarily interfere with the said process by way  

of granting injunction.  The argument advanced  

by  the  appellants  that  election  process  having  

started, the injunction should not be granted is  

dealt with by the learned Judge by holding that in  

the present case the plaintiffs have not prayed for  

injunction  against  the  election  process.   This  

Court  has  no  doubt  at  all  that  the  injunction  

granted by the learned Judge has propensity to  

intervene  and  interfere  with  election  process  

which  had  already  started.   Apart  from  the  

prayers  claimed  in  the  applications  filed  under  

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151  

CPC the Court could not have ignored the effect  

of  granting  an  injunction.   If  the  injunction  

55

granted  by  the  learned  Judge  had  not  been  

stayed  by  this  Court,  the  office  bearers  of  the  

SCBA would have been required to prepare a new  

voters  list  as  if  unamended  Rule  18  was  in  

operation and the exercise undertaken by them  

for  preparing  voters  list  in  the  light  of  the  

amended  Rule  18  would  have  been  of  no  

consequence.  Thus the injunction claimed by the  

plaintiffs/respondents  which  had  very  wide  

repercussions on the elections, which were to be  

held  in  the  year  2003,  should  not  have  been  

granted by the learned Judge.

34. The impugned order is also liable to be set aside  

on yet another ground.  Though the suits were  

not  filed  in  a  representative  capacity,  the  

injunction is granted by the court restraining the  

appellants  from  implementing  the  resolution  

dated  February  18,  2003  in  respect  of  all  

advocates  and  not  in  respect  of  two  advocates  

only who have filed Civil Suit Nos. 100 of 2003  

and 101 of 2003 respectively.  A perusal of the  

56

plaint in the two suits makes it more than clear  

that  suits  are  not  filed  in  a  representative  

capacity.  In the plaint, individual rights to vote  

at  the  election  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  

SCBA is  claimed.   Even if  extremely  good case  

was made out by the plaintiffs/respondents of the  

two suits, the relief could have been confined only  

to  the  two  plaintiffs/respondents  and  a  relief  

granting  blanket  injunction  restraining  the  

appellants  from  implementing  the  Resolution  

dated February 18, 2003 amending Rule 18 of the  

Rules  and  Regulations  of  SCBA  till  the  final  

disposal of the suits could not have been granted.

35. For all these reasons impugned common order is  

liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside.

36. Mr.  K.K.Venugopal,  an  august  and  well-known  

senior lawyer, who is regularly practicing in this  

Court since years and was also former President  

of SCBA at least for three years and who was also  

Chairman, Interim Board of Management in 2010  

57

when the Executive Committee of the SCBA had  

dissolved itself and appointed the Interim Board  

of Management, submitted that the statements of  

aims and objectives of the SCBA, among others,  

includes  the  objective,  viz.,  “to  promote  and  

protect the privileges, interest and prestige of the  

association  and  to  promote  union  and  

cooperation  among  the  advocates  practicing  in  

the court and other association and advocates”.  

According to the learned counsel, the phrase “to  

promote  union  and  cooperation  among  the  

advocates  practicing  in  the  court  and  other  

association  and  advocate”  is  to  promote  union  

and cooperation among the advocates practicing  

in  the  Supreme  Court,  on  the  one  hand,  and  

other advocates or associations of advocates, on  

the other, which itself indicates that SCBA exists  

for  the  advocates practicing “in  the  court”,  i.e.,  

Supreme  Court  of  India.   The  learned  counsel  

explained that SCBA exists for the benefit of the  

advocates  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  India  and  

58

SCBA owes  a  fiduciary  duty  to  such advocates  

and  members  of  the  SCBA for  protecting  their  

privileges,  interests  and  prestige.   The  learned  

counsel  asserted  that  the  SCBA  is,  therefore,  

entitled  to  seek the  protection  of  the  Court  by  

invoking Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure  

that  the  members  practicing  in  the  Supreme  

Court are not rendered incapable of enjoying, to  

the  full,  the  privileges  and  benefits  in  the  

Supreme  Court  of  India,  which  has  provided  

infrastructure  and  facilities  in  the  nature  of  

libraries,  car  parking,  chambers,  canteens,  

lounges,  etc.   The  learned  counsel  pointed  out  

that the factual situation, which has been placed  

before the Court, would establish that today the  

membership of the SCBA has risen to an mind-

boggling figure of around 10,000, of which only  

around 2,000 members are regularly practicing in  

this  Court.   Informing  the  Court  the  learned  

counsel  mentioned  that  historically,  with  the  

advocates  regularly  practicing  in  the  Supreme  

59

Court being inducted as members of the SCBA,  

the facilities made available by this Court to the  

members were sufficient for their use, but certain  

unhealthy practices and vices started creeping in  

to  the  system  of  elections  to  the  various  

posts/offices of  the SCBA by reason of  the fact  

that the office of the President of SCBA carried a  

vast  prestige  and  status,  not  merely  among  

lawyers  but  also  among  Governments  and  the  

political class.  It was also stated by the learned  

counsel that being an office bearer of a member of  

the Executive Committee of the SCBA also carried  

great importance and prestige.  According to the  

learned counsel, the main vice that crept into the  

system,  for  the  last  decade  or  so  was  that  

aspiring  office  bearers  started  buying  the  

application forms for membership, in bulk, and  

paying the membership fee for lawyers from the  

various places like Meerut, Rohtak, Saharanpur,  

Ghaziabad  and  even  as  far  away  a  place  as  

Chandigarh.  The learned counsel Shri Venugopal  

60

claimed  as  Chairman  of  the  Interim  Board  of  

Management that  one came across as many as  

100  subscription  forms,  paid  with  consecutive  

bank  draft  numbers,  as  disclosed  by  the  bank  

statements  obtained  by  the  Interim  Board  of  

Management, which showed that a single sponsor  

had paid vast sums of money for each of these  

forms  and  memberships,  the  membership  fee  

being  Rs.5,150/-  for  advocates  with  ten  years  

standing and Rs.3,650/- for advocates with less  

than ten years standing.  It was emphasized by  

the learned counsel that practices like these have  

resulted  in  the  present  strength  of  the  SCBA  

being around 10,000 and it is a well known fact  

among  the  members  of  the  Bar  regularly  

practicing  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  India  that  

persons  inducted  into  the  SCBA  through  such  

means, numbering about 8,000, are seen in the  

Supreme Court premises only on the day of SCBA  

elections for casting their votes, otherwise, these  

persons have no interest whatsoever either in the  

61

functioning of the SCBA or the well being of its  

members or the functioning of the Supreme Court  

of  India,  as a Court.   The learned counsel  has  

produced minutes of the meeting of the Interim  

Board  of  Management  dated  March  22,  2010  

along with his written submissions for perusal of  

the Court.  The learned senior counsel lamented  

that  all  these  would  disclose  the  disgraceful  

condition  to  which SCBA has  been reduced on  

account  of  machinations  and  malpractices  of  

certain members of the SCBA, who are aspiring  

for  offices  in  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  

SCBA.  The learned counsel has also appended  

copies of Allotment of Lawyers’ Chambers Rules  

as amended up to November 30, 2007 as well as  

letter  dated  August  10,  2004  inter  alia  

prescribing  eligibility  to  apply  for  allotment  of  

chambers  along  with  his  written  submissions.  

The  learned  counsel  has  pointed  out  that  the  

SCBA  is  facing  a  crises  today,  because  of  the  

induction of the vast number of members who do  

62

not  practice  regularly  in  the  Supreme Court  of  

India and, therefore, have no interest whatsoever  

in  the  function  of  the  Apex  Court  or  in  the  

reputation, prestige and well being of the SCBA  

whereas, on the other hand, the sole objective of  

such persons is  to  ensure  that  their  respective  

sponsor(s),  who  paid  their  subscription  and  

entrance fee, would be elected to one of the posts  

of  the  SCBA,  including  the  post  of  SCBA  

President.   The  learned  counsel  has  expressed  

apprehension that the day may not be far of when  

the entire set of office bearers of the SCBA may be  

persons with no regular practice in the Supreme  

Court of  India and who may have their  regular  

practice in other courts in Delhi or even in the  

adjoining towns or even in a city as far away from  

Delhi  as  Chandigarh.   The  learned  counsel  

argued  that  the  SCBA  has  to  shoulder  great  

responsibility  in  regard  to  the  effective  

functioning  of  the  Supreme  Court  itself,  the  

dispensation  of  justice  and  to  represent  the  

63

regular practicing members of the Bar from time  

to  time.   According  to  the  learned  counsel  the  

present  situation,  which  virtually  renders  the  

regularly  practicing  members  strangers  in  their  

own court can only be remedied if this Court were  

to  step  in,  to  exercise  its  vast  powers  under  

Article 142 of the Constitution, to ensure that the  

functioning of the Court itself is not affected by  

reason  of  the  huge  influx,  into  the  SCBA,  of  

advocates who have no interest in the functioning  

of the Supreme Court, its Bar or its association.  

The  learned  counsel  asserted  that  the  

circumstances  prevailing  are  such  that  it  is  

imperative for the well being of the institution, as  

well as Apex Court of the country itself, and its  

regularly practicing members to ensure that it is  

only the regularly practicing members who will be  

eligible to cast votes at the SCBA elections.  For  

this purpose the learned counsel has suggested  

that it  is essential  that the right to vote in the  

SCBA elections is restricted to the categories of  

64

persons  enumerated  in  the  Interim  Board  of  

Management circular dated March 22, 2010, the  

relevant  portion  whereof  has  been  extracted  in  

the written submissions.

Mr.  P.P.Rao,  learned  celebrated  senior  counsel  

regularly practicing in this Court since long and who is  

also former President of SCBA, has emphasized that the  

very  name  of  Bar  Association,  viz.,  SCBA necessarily  

means and implies that it is an association representing  

members  regularly  practicing  in  the  court  and  

responsible  for  proper  conduct  of  its  members in  the  

court and for ensuring proper assistance to the court.  

The  learned counsel  has,  in  his  written  submissions,  

mentioned  that  SCBA needs  to  be  salvaged  from the  

deluge of  overwhelming numbers of  outside advocates  

practicing  not  only  in  the  NCTR  but  even  all  other  

States in North India who had been enrolled by short-

sighted candidates with an eye on their election to the  

SCBA.  The learned counsel  has asserted that  unless  

this Court comes to the rescue of SCBA, the association  

will  cease to be a court annexed Bar Association and  

65

words  “Supreme  Court”  will  have  to  be  dropped  and  

substituted by the words “North India”.   Emphasizing  

that the character of the SCBA should not be allowed to  

be  diluted in  any circumstances,  the  learned counsel  

has asserted that this is a fit case for exercise of powers  

under  Article  142  of  the  Constitution.   The  learned  

counsel  Mr.  P.P.  Rao  has  suggested  that  to  identify  

regular practitioners 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 at pages 465-467 para 7, may be  

adopted or in the alternative criteria mentioned in the  

circular  dated March 22,  2010 issued by  the  Interim  

Board of Management of  the SCBA consisting of  M/s.  

K.K. Venugopal, Chairman, Mr. P.P. Rao, Vice Chairman  

and Mr. P.H. Parekh, Member – Executive and Convener  

may be considered for acceptance mutatis mutandis.

 Mr.  Ranjit  Kumar,  a  distinguished  attorney  of  

this  Court,  who is  appointed as amicus curie  in  this  

matter  to  assist  the  Court,  Mr.  Sushil  Kumar  Jain,  

learned President, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record  

66

Association,  Mr.  D.K.Garg,  learned  Counsel  for  the  

respondent  and  who  was  also  in  past  President  of  

Supreme  Court  Advocates-on-Record  Association,  

pointed out to this Court the difficulties being faced by  

regular members of the SCBA because of enlistment of  

large  number  non-regular  advocates  as  members  of  

SCBA, who according to them, now constitute a majority  

as a result of which the SCBA has not been able to take  

any decision which would be in the interest of the Bar.  

The  learned  Counsel  have  stated  in  their  written  

submissions filed, to supplement their oral arguments,  

that  there  are  more  than  ten  thousand  members  of  

SCBA out  of  which only  two thousand  advocates  are  

regular  members  who  actually  practice  in  this  Court  

and eight  thousand non-regular  members have  taken  

over the affairs of the SCBA in such a manner that it is  

almost impossible for the regular members to transact  

any  business  in  the  general  or  special  meetings  of  

SCBA.   The  learned  Counsel  emphasized  that  yearly  

subscription  for  members  of  SCBA for  many  decades  

remained  fixed  at  a  paltry  amount  of  Rs.  500/-  and  

67

every time when a proposal was made to increase the  

subscription the same was rejected by the General Body  

dominated by these non-regular members and that only  

recently with great difficulty the subscription has been  

revised to Rs. 1500/- by secret ballot held within high  

security area of Supreme Court namely Library 1, but  

now there is a demand to reduce it again to Rs. 500/-.  

The learned Counsel pointed out that if the subscription  

for members of SCBA is again revised and reduced to  

Rs.500/-, it will be a boon not only for such non-regular  

members but also a boon for the candidates contesting  

elections who will  have to shell  out less, for enrolling  

those advocates who are not practicing regularly in this  

Court,  to  secure  their  votes  and  get  elected.   It  was  

emphasized  that  the  enhanced  subscription  is  in  the  

interest  of  association  as  it  would  not  only  improve  

financial position of SCBA but also help to keep at bay  

those members who are not regularly practicing in this  

Court.   The  learned  Counsel  argued  that  this  Court  

provides  to  the  members  of  SCBA,  who  are  regularly  

practicing in this Court, several facilities/benefits such  

68

as bar rooms, libraries, canteens, parking place, clinics,  

rest  rooms  etc.,  and  as  SCBA  is  intrinsically  and  

inextricably connected with the working of the Supreme  

Court, this Court should give appropriate directions for  

effective implementation of “One Bar One Vote” concept  

introduced by the amended rule in exercise of its powers  

under  Articles  136,  142  and  145(1)  (a)  of  the  

Constitution  to  relieve  the  SCBA  of  the  number  of  

maladies which have now come to be associated with it  

and  to  improve  the  working  of  the  institution  as  a  

whole.  What was stressed by all the learned Counsel  

was that it is not in the interest of SCBA that advocates  

who do not practice in this Court regularly, vote for or  

get elected to the Executive Committee of SCBA, but in  

past,  several  members  who  were  themselves  not  

regularly practicing in the Supreme Court had contested  

elections for different posts of Executive Committee of  

SCBA  though  they  were  already  members  of  the  

Executive  Committees  of  other  Court  annexed  Bar  

Associations  and  had  come  out  successful  on  the  

strength of votes of such non-regular members who are  

69

to be seen in the Court compound only on the date of  

elections.   The learned Counsel mentioned that persons  

so elected do not participate in the functioning of SCBA  

since  they  are  not  affected  by  the  working  or  non-

working of the SCBA which has affected the functioning  

of SCBA as a facilitator in the administration of justice  

and therefore in order to maintain purity and dignity of  

the profession this Court has not only power but duty to  

give  directions  under  Article  136  and  Article  142  

particularly  when  request  is  made  by  the  learned  

amicus  curie,  SCBA  represented  by  its  Honorary  

Secretary,  President  of  Supreme  Court  Advocates–on-

Record Association and other high-ranking lawyers like  

Shri K.K.Venugopal, Shri P.P.Rao etc., who are regularly  

practicing only in this Court.  Mr. D.K.Garg, the learned  

Counsel who represents respondent Mr. B.D.Kaushik in  

C.A. No. 3401 of 2003, frankly pointed out to this Court  

as an officer of the Court that in spite of other effective  

alternative  remedies  available  to  the  appellant  SCBA  

against the interim order dated April 5,2003 passed by  

the learned Civil Judge, Delhi, this Court had not only  

70

entertained  Special  Leave  Petition  filed  by  SCBA,  but  

also granted stay because this Court wanted to regulate,  

reform  and  improve  the  functioning  of  SCBA  and  to  

prevent the misuse of various facilities provided by this  

Court  to  the  regular  members  of   SCBA so  that  the  

members  of  the  SCBA render  best  assistance  to  this  

Court in dispensation of justice.  It was also submitted  

that SLP was entertained and operation of the impugned  

interim order was stayed by this Court to prevent the  

interference  of  the  outside  members  in  day-to-day  

functioning  of  SCBA and  therefore  this  Court  should  

give directions/frame guidelines to regulate, reform and  

improve the functioning of SCBA.  The learned Counsel  

pointed out that it is no secret that yearly membership  

subscription  fee  of  almost  all  these  non-regular  

members is paid by candidates contesting election for  

the various posts of the Executive Committee of SCBA  

and the records of SCBA show that hundreds of bank  

drafts were issued by the same branch of the same bank  

in  favour  of  SCBA  for  the  same  amount  towards  

subscription  of  SCBA  for  such  non-regular  members  

71

and  that  some  interested  persons  who  seek  votes  of  

these  non-regular  members in  the  elections  had paid  

the subscription.  This last argument of Mr. D.K.Garg  

was endorsed by one and all learned advocates who are  

appearing in the matter.  Thus, the learned advocates  

have urged this Court to give guidelines/directions for  

effective implementation of amended rule which projects  

the principle of “One Bar One Vote”.

37. This Court has considered the request made by  

the learned Counsel appearing in the matter to  

give  appropriate  directions/guidelines  for  

effective implementation of “One Bar One Vote”  

principle enunciated by the amended rule.  It is  

a matter of common knowledge that this Court  

has provided four huge libraries, three canteens,  

two  lounges,  several  rooms  to  be  used  as  

consultation  rooms  where  learned  advocates  

regularly  practicing  in  this  Court  can  consult  

with their clients, arbitration rooms, advocate’s  

chambers,  huge  parking  places,  free  use  of  

electricity  supply  etc.,  to  the  members  of  the  

72

SCBA.  It is not in dispute that there are about  

ten  thousand  members  of  SCBA  at  present  

though  the  actual  number  of  

advocates/practitioners,  who  are  regularly  

practicing in this  Court  is  not  more than two  

thousand five  hundred out of  which there are  

about nine hundred Advocates-on-Record.  It is  

an  accepted  fact  that  on  the  eve  of  annual  

elections of the Executive Committee of SCBA,  

nearly more than three thousand voters turn up  

from all over India to come to the premises of  

this  Court,  who  are  made  to  vote  by  the  

advocates  seeking  elections  for  various  posts.  

Further,  enlistment  of  large  number  of  non-

regular members as members of the SCBA have  

created problems in allotment of chambers for  

this  Court  and  it  has  been  found  that  large  

number of non-regular members of  SCBA eats  

up the quota of regular members who genuinely  

need  the  chambers.   It  was  pointed  by  Shri  

Sushil  Kumar  Jain,  the  learned  President  of  

73

Supreme  Court  Advocates-on-Record  

Association  that  many  of  the  non-regular  

members  who  are  allotted  chambers  are  not  

even residing in or around Delhi.  The Supreme  

Court  Advocates-on-Record  are  advocates  

primarily practicing in the Supreme Court and  

are directly affected by the functioning of SCBA  

primary  object  of  which  is  to  look  after  the  

interest of  advocates actually practicing in the  

Supreme Court.  There is no manner of doubt  

that  Advocates-on-Record  form  an  important  

constituent  of  the  SCBA.  All  members of  the  

Supreme  Court  Advocates-on-Record  

Association are also members of the SCBA and  

because  of  malpractices  committed  by  the  

candidates  who  contest  the  elections  a  large  

number  of  advocates  who  are  not  regular  

practitioners in the Supreme Court have become  

members of SCBA and claim a right, not only to  

vote  and  elect  the  office  bearers  of  the  

Association but also seek to be elected as office  

74

bearers themselves on the strength and support  

of  such  non-regular  members.   Because  such  

non-regular members have become members of  

SCBA,  they  claim  facilities  which  are  being  

extended  to  members  of  SCBA,  who  are  

regularly practicing in this Court.   Because of  

such  claims,  clashes,  had  taken  place  in  the  

past.   It  has  been pointed  out  by  Mr.  Sushil  

Kumar  Jain,  learned  President  of  Supreme  

Court Advocates-on-Record Association that by  

merely  becoming  members  of  the  SCBA some  

advocates deem themselves to be advocates of  

the Supreme Court and fleece litigants on that  

basis.   According  to  Shri  Sushil  Kumar  Jain  

such  advocates  call  themselves  as  Supreme  

Court  Advocates  and  write/mention  such  a  

status on their letter heads, visiting cards, name  

plates, etc. misleading the litigants.  As rightly  

pointed out by the learned counsel Mr. P.P. Rao,  

enrolment of advocates not practicing regularly  

in the Supreme Court is inconsistent with the  

75

main aim and object of the SCBA, no court can  

provide  chambers  or  other  facilities  for  such  

outside  advocates,  who  are  not  regular  

practitioners.  Neither the SCBA nor the court  

can deal with them effectively if they commit any  

wrong.  The power of this Court to make certain  

rules, regulations and give directions to fill  up  

the vacuum till such time appropriate steps in  

order to cover the gap are taken, is recognized  

and upheld in several reported decisions of this  

Court.   In  Vineet  Narain Vs.  Union of India  

(1998) 1 SCC 226  this Court has observed as  

under in Paragraph 51 of the reported decision:-

“In  exercise  of  the  powers  of  this  Court  under  Article  32  read  with  Article  142,  guidelines and directions have been issued  in  a  large  number  of   cases  and  a  brief  reference to a few of them is sufficient.  In  Erach  Sam Kanga  Etc.  Vs,  Union  of  India,  (Writ Petition No. 2632 of 1978 decided on  20th March,  1979)  the  Constitution  Bench  laid  down  certain  guidelines  relating  to  Emigration  Act.   In  Lakshmi  Kant  Pandey  Vs. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 244, (in re:  Foreign Adoption), guidelines for adoption of  minor children by foreigners were laid down.  Similarly in  State  of West Bengal  and Ors.   Etc. Vs.  Sampat Lal and Ors. Etc., (1985) 1  

76

SCC 317, K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India  and  Others, (1991)  3  SCC  655,  Union  Carbide Corporation and Others Vs. Union of   India and others,  (1991) 4 SCC 584,  Delhi  Judicial Service Association Etc. Vs. State of   Gujarat  and  others  Etc.  (Nadiad  Case),  (1991)  4  SCC  406,  Delhi  Development  Authority Vs.  Skipper  Construction  Co.  (P)   Ltd.  and  Another, (1996)  4  SCC  622  and  Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Others Vs. Union of   India  and  others [1997]  4  SCC  306,  guidelines were laid down having the effect  of  law,  requiring  rigid  compliance.   In  Supreme  Court  Advocates-on-Record  Association  and  Others Vs.  Union  of  India   (IInd  Judges  case),  (1993)  4  SCC  441,  a  Nine-Judge Bench laid down guidelines and  norms for the appointment and transfer of  Judges which are being rigidly followed in  the  matter  of  appointments  of  High Court  and Supreme Court Judges and transfer of  High  Court  Judges.   More  recently  in  Vishakha and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan   and  others,  (1997)  6  SCC  241,  elaborate  guidelines  have  been  laid  down  for  observance in work places relating to sexual  harassment of working women.”

Moreover, this Court, has framed Supreme Court Rules,  

1966 in exercise of powers under Article 145(1)(a) of the  

Constitution regulating amongst other things advocates  

who  are  entitled  to  practice  in  this  Court.   Further,  

necessary  directions/guidelines  can  always  be  issued  

when  facilities  and  privileges  are  conferred  on  the  

77

members of  the SCBA.  Thus not  only  power to  give  

necessary  guidelines/directions  is  available  under  

Articles 136, 142, 145(1)(a) of the Constitution but such  

power can also be exercised as “Grantor” of the benefits  

and privileges which are enjoyed by the members of the  

SCBA to restore its dignity.  Having regard to the over  

all conditions prevailing in SCBA, this Court proposes  

to give appropriate directions for implementation of the  

amended rule which projects the principle of “One Bar  

One Vote”.

38. Having  given  thoughtful  consideration  to  the  

suggestions  made  by  the  learned  counsel  

appearing  in  the  matter,  this  Court  is  of  the  

opinion that to identify regular practitioners 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  at  pages  465-467  

para 7, should be directed to be adopted by SCBA  

from  time  to  time.   Shri  K.K.  Venugopal,  the  

learned  senior  counsel  has  annexed  a  copy  of  

78

Allotment  of  Lawyers’  Chambers  Rules,  as  

amended  up  to  November  30,  2007,  with  his  

written submissions, wherein detailed procedure  

for  allotment  of  chambers  and  conditions  

precedent  to  be  satisfied  before  a  chamber  is  

allotted, are laid down.  Under the circumstances  

this  Court  directs  under  Article  136  of  the  

Constitution  read  with  Article  142  of  the  

Constitution that criteria adopted by this Court  

for  allotment  of  chambers,  as  mentioned  in  

Allotment  of  Lawyers’  Chambers  Rules,  and  as  

explained  in  Vinay  Balchandra  Joshi  (supra)  

shall  be  adopted  by  the  SCBA  and  its  office  

bearers  to  identify  regular  practitioners  in  this  

Court.   To identify  regular  practitioners in  this  

Court, it would be open to the office bearers of  

SCBA  or  a  small  committee,  which  may  be  

appointed by the SCBA consisting of three senior  

advocates,  to  collect  information  about  those  

members who had contested election in any of  

the  Court  annexed  Bar  Association,  viz.,  High  

79

Court  Bar  Association,  District  Court  Bar  

Association,  Taluka  Bar  Association,  Tribunal  

Bar  Association  and  Quasi-judicial  Bar  

Associations like BIFR, AIFR, CAT, etc. from 2005  

to 2010.  If such an information is sought by the  

office  bearers  of  SCBA  or  the  Committee  

appointed  by  it,  the  same  shall  be  supplied  

invariably and without fail by the Court annexed  

Bar  Associations  mentioned  earlier.   The  

committee  of  SCBA  to  be  appointed  is  hereby  

directed  to  prepare  a  list  of  regular  members  

practicing in this Court and another separate list  

of members not regularly practicing in this Court  

and third list of temporary members of the SCBA.  

These lists are directed to be put up on the SCBA  

website and also on the SCBA notice board.  A  

letter is directed to be sent by the SCBA to each  

member of SCBA informing him about his status  

of membership on or before February 28, 2012.  

The aggrieved member would be entitled to make  

a representation within 15 days from the date of  

80

receipt  of  letter  from  the  S.C.B.A.  to  the  

Committee, which is to be appointed by the SCBA  

to identify regular practitioners stating in writing,  

whether personal hearing before the Committee is  

required or not.  If such a request is made the  

concerned  member  shall  be  heard  by  the  

Committee.   The  representation/s  shall  be  

considered and the decision would be rendered  

thereon by the aforesaid Committee on or before  

April 30, 2012.  The decision of that Committee  

shall be communicated to the member concerned  

but  the  decision  shall  be  final,  conclusive  and  

binding on the member of the SCBA.  Thereafter,  

final  list  of  regular  practitioners  of  this  Court  

shall be displayed by S.C.B.A.

After preparation of the final  list of  the regular  

practitioners,  each  member  shall  give  a  written  

intimation to the S.C.B.A. whether he is a member of  

another Court annexed Bar.  It shall be mandatory for a  

member, whose name is included in the said list, to give  

a permanent declaration that he would vote only in the  

81

SCBA and would not vote in any of the elections of any  

High Court Bar Association or District Bar Association  

or Taluka Bar Association or Tribunal Bar Association  

or Quasi-judicial Bar Associations like BIFR, AIFR, CAT,  

etc.   A  copy  of  this  declaration  shall  be  put  

up/displayed on the website of the SCBA as well as on  

the notice board of the SCBA.  The information about  

having filed such a declaration shall be sent to all the  

Bar Associations where the said advocate is a member.  

Once such a declaration has been given, it will be valid  

till it is revoked and once it is revoked a member shall  

forfeit 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.   

39. The members of the SCBA, whose names do not  

figure  in  the  final  list  of  regular  practitioners,  

shall 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 S.C.B.A.

82

40. This  Court  suggests  that  to  ensure  strict  

compliance  with  the  directions  issued  by  this  

judgment,  an  Implementation  Committee  

consisting of three learned senior advocates may  

be  constituted.   The  SCBA has  suggested  that  

Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior advocate, Mr.  

P.P. Rao, learned senior advocate and Mr. Ranjit  

Kumar,  learned  senior  advocate,  practicing  in  

this Court be appointed as members of the said  

Implementation  Committee.   This  Court  

recommends  that  the  names  of  three  learned  

senior counsel mentioned above be considered by  

the SCBA for being appointed as members of the  

said  Committee  subject  to  their  consent  and  

convenience.

41. In view of the findings that the amendment made  

in Rule 18 is legal and valid and that no right of  

the  advocates,  who  have  filed  the  suits,  is  

infringed or is violated, this Court directs the trial  

court  to  take  up the  two suits  immediately  for  

hearing and to dismiss/ dispose of the two suits  

83

pending on its file in the light of the observations  

made by this Court in this judgment.

42. Subject  to  above  mentioned directions,  the  two  

appeals stand disposed of.  

………………………………J.  (J.M. PANCHAL)

……………………………….J.  (H.L. GOKHALE)

New Delhi; September 26, 2011.

84