# SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS v. B.D. KAUSHIK

- **Citation:** [2011] 15 S.C.R. 736
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-09-26
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3401 OF 2003
- **Bench:** J.M. Panchal, H.L. Gokhale
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/supreme-court-bar-association-and-others-v-b-d-kaushik-27373
- **Pages:** 57

## Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and
2 r/w s.151 - Rules and Regulations of Supreme Court Bar
C Association (SCBA) - Eligibility of the members to contest
and vote at the SCBA elections -Amended rule - Validity of
- In the General Body Meeting of SCBA, convened on
February 18, 2003, resolution proposing amendment in Rule
18 of the Rules and Regulations of the SCBA projecting the
o principle of "One Bar One Vote" was put to vote and was
passed by majority - Respondents, two members of the
SCBA, filed civil suits challenging the validity of the resolution
- They also filed applications u/Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 rlw
s.151 of CPC to restrain the defendants-appellants from
E implementing the said Resolution till final disposal of the
suits - Civil Judge allowed the applications by an interim
order - Interim order challenged - Held: The concept of
voting introduced by amendment of Rule 18 of the Rules and
Regulations of the SCBA cannot be regarded as illegal or
F unconstitutional - 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 - In the case on
G hand, it cannot be said that limitations/ restrictions on the
exercise of right to vote and contest the elections amounted
to altering and/or amending and/ or changing Aims and
Objects of the SCBA - The impugned Rule only prescribed
the eligibility or made a person ineligible in the circumstances
H
736
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
737
B.D. KAUSHIK
stated therein which was in the nature of a reasonable A
restriction - The restriction on the right to vote of a member
was provided with an avowed object of better welfare and
convenience of those advocates, who are regularly practicing
in Supreme Court and who are directly concerned with its dayto-day affairs - Such restriction in fact subserves Article 145
8
of the Constitution and other statutory provisions relating to
advocates - The provision in the SCBA Rules for prescribing
eligibility to vote at only one of the associations, i.e., "One Bar
One Vote" was a prescription which was in furtherance of the
right to form association and be able to manage the affairs C
of the association by those who regularly practice in the courts
of which the association is formed and of which the members
are regular practitioners - The amended Rule 18 did not take
away right to vote completely but put restrictions to promote
and protect the privileges, interest and prestige of the SCBA
0
- 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, it is
clear that the Civil Judge should not have granted the
injunction as claimed by the plaintiffs/respondents for mere
asking - The amendment made in Rule 18 was legal and E
valid and no right of the advocates, who filed the suits, was
infringed or was violated - Guidelines/directions given by
Supreme Court for effective implementation of the amended
rule - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - s. 12 - Constitution
of India, 1950 - Arts. 136, 142 and 145.
F
Advocates/Legal Profession - Bar Association - Purpose
of - Held: 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 G
any grievance through their elected bocfy because individual
lawyers are not supposed nor it is proper for them to interact
with the Judges so as to preserve and secure the
independence of judiciary.
H
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
Interim order - Held: Interim relief, which has tendency
to allow the final relief claimed in the p

## Text

_Characters 0–39,975 of 117,630. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39975 for what follows._

[2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 736
A
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS
B
v.
B.D. KAUSHIK
(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3401 OF 2003)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2011
[J.M. PANCHAL AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and
2 r/w s.151 - Rules and Regulations of Supreme Court Bar
C Association (SCBA) - Eligibility of the members to contest
and vote at the SCBA elections -Amended rule - Validity of
- In the General Body Meeting of SCBA, convened on
February 18, 2003, resolution proposing amendment in Rule
18 of the Rules and Regulations of the SCBA projecting the
o principle of "One Bar One Vote" was put to vote and was
passed by majority - Respondents, two members of the
SCBA, filed civil suits challenging the validity of the resolution
- They also filed applications u/Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 rlw
s.151 of CPC to restrain the defendants-appellants from
E implementing the said Resolution till final disposal of the
suits - Civil Judge allowed the applications by an interim
order - Interim order challenged - Held: The concept of
voting introduced by amendment of Rule 18 of the Rules and
Regulations of the SCBA cannot be regarded as illegal or
F unconstitutional - 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 - In the case on
G hand, it cannot be said that limitations/ restrictions on the
exercise of right to vote and contest the elections amounted
to altering and/or amending and/ or changing Aims and
Objects of the SCBA - The impugned Rule only prescribed
the eligibility or made a person ineligible in the circumstances
H
736
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
737
B.D. KAUSHIK
stated therein which was in the nature of a reasonable A
restriction - The restriction on the right to vote of a member
was provided with an avowed object of better welfare and
convenience of those advocates, who are regularly practicing
in Supreme Court and who are directly concerned with its dayto-day affairs - Such restriction in fact subserves Article 145
8
of the Constitution and other statutory provisions relating to
advocates - The provision in the SCBA Rules for prescribing
eligibility to vote at only one of the associations, i.e., "One Bar
One Vote" was a prescription which was in furtherance of the
right to form association and be able to manage the affairs C
of the association by those who regularly practice in the courts
of which the association is formed and of which the members
are regular practitioners - The amended Rule 18 did not take
away right to vote completely but put restrictions to promote
and protect the privileges, interest and prestige of the SCBA
0
- 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, it is
clear that the Civil Judge should not have granted the
injunction as claimed by the plaintiffs/respondents for mere
asking - The amendment made in Rule 18 was legal and E
valid and no right of the advocates, who filed the suits, was
infringed or was violated - Guidelines/directions given by
Supreme Court for effective implementation of the amended
rule - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - s. 12 - Constitution
of India, 1950 - Arts. 136, 142 and 145.
F
Advocates/Legal Profession - Bar Association - Purpose
of - Held: 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 G
any grievance through their elected bocfy because individual
lawyers are not supposed nor it is proper for them to interact
with the Judges so as to preserve and secure the
independence of judiciary.
H
738
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A
Interim order - Held: Interim relief, which has tendency
to allow the final relief claimed in the proceedings, should not
be granted lightly.
Appellant no.1-Supreme Court Bar Association
(SCBA) is a Society registered under the Societies
8 Registration Act, 1860 having its Registered Office in the
Supreme Court premises at New Delhi. In exercise of
powers under the provisions of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, the SCBA had framed its
Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations.
c
A requisition signed by 343 Members of the SCBA
was received in the Office of the SCBA whereby an
amendment was sought in Rule 18 of the Rules and
Regulations of SCBA regarding the eligibility of the
o members to contest and vote at the SCBA elections. It
was proposed that a member, who exercises his right to
vote in any High Court or District Court, Advocates'IBar
Association, shall not be eligible to contest for any post
of the SCBA or to cast his vote at the elections. It was
E 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 and also that if such
a declaration is found to be false, it shall entail automatic
F suspension of the member giving such false declaration
from membership of SCBA for a period of three years.
The requisition was considered in the Executive
Committee meeting and it was decided to hold a special
General Body Meeting to consider the requisition. On
February 18, 2003 the General Body Meeting was
G convened wherein the resolution proposing amendment
in Rule 18 of the Rules was put to vote, It w"s passed by
majority of 85% of the members present and voting. Thus
the resolution "One Bar One Vote", was adopted in the
General Body Meeting dated February 18, 2003.
H
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
739
B.D. KAUSHIK
Respondents, who were members of the SCBA, filed
A
civil suits challenging the validity of resolution dated
February 18, 2003 and inter a/ia also prayed for a decree
of perpetual injunction restraining the SCBA and its
Office Bearers from implementing the said Resolution in
the elections of SCBA, which were proposed to be held
B
on April 25, 2003. The respondents also filed applications
under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of
the CPC to restrain the defendants-appellants, from
implementing the Resolution dated February 18, 2003 till
the final disposal of the suits. By an interim order, the Civil c
Judge allowed the said applications. The said interim
order passed by the Civil Judge was challenged in the
present appeals.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. No person can be enrolled as an advocate
D
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
E
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 introduced by
amendment of Rule 18 of the Rules and Regulations of
F
the SCBA cannot be
regarded as
illegal or
unconstitutional. 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/ G
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
H
740
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Resolution adopted in the General Body Meeting. [Para
15) [764-F-H; 765-A-B]
2. 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,
B therefore, the same is illegal, cannot be accepted. The
substance and purpose of the amendment made in Rule
18 of the Rules and Regulations of the SCBA cannot be
lost sight of. It does not affect any of the aims and
objectives of the SCBA. On the contrary, it promotes and
C 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
o 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. [Para 16) [765-C-F]
3. The restrictions placed on right of voting can
E hardly be regarded as altering or amending Aims and
Objects of SCBA. 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
F 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
G 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
H in Societies Registration Act, 1860. [Para 17) [765-G-H;
766-A-B]
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
741
8.D. KAUSHIK
4. The Civil Judge decreed the suit partially by A
granting injunction without adjudicating rival claims of the
parties. Interim relief, which has tendency to allow the
final relief claimed in the proceedings, should not be
granted lightly. The relief granted by the Judge at the
interim stage was not warranted by the facts of the case
B
at all. [Para 20] [768-A-C]
5. 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.
C
No such right exists in election matters since exercise of
a right conferred by a rule is always subject to the
qualifications 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 D
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. [Para 22] [769-C-E]
E
6. 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
F
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. The
impugned clause in the Rule is not the only clause G
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
H
742
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
c practices. Though an advocate can be member of several
associations, the right to form 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
0 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
E 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
F 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 int~ract with the Judges so as to
preserve and secure the independence of judiciary. [Para
G 23) [769-F-H; 770-A-F]
7. 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 regularly
H practicing in this Court and who are directly concerned
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
743
B.D. KAUSHIK
with day-to-day affairs of the Supreme Court. Such A
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
B
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 c
Judge. [Para 24] [770-G-H; 771-A-D]
8. 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 D
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 practice in the courts of which the
association is formed and of which the members are
E
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
F
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
G
to have a Body of Advocates who are attached to and
practicing ·in the Supreme Court of India. [Para 25] [771E-H; 772-A-B]
Smt. Damyanti Naranga v. The Union of India and others
H
744
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A (1971) 1 SCC 678; Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society
Ltd. and others v. District Registrar, Cooperative Societies
(Urban) and others (2005) 5 SCC 632 - referred to.
9. In matters of internal management of an
8 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 qualification for the membership and/
or providing for limitations/restrictions on the exercise of
C 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. [Para
D 26) [773-D-F]
10. 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
E SCBA. 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, it is clear that the Civil Judge should not have
granted the injunction as claimed by the plaintiffs/
F respondents for mere asking. [Para 27) [773-G-H; 774-A]
11. 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
G 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. SCBA being a Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, is governed by its
H Memorandum of Association. The said Association is
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
745
B.D. KAUSHIK
entitled to have its own Rules and Regulations. In fact, it A
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
B
registered under the 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 c
of the Society. The power to .amend the rules is implicit
in the power to frame rules. [Para 29] [774-E-H; 775-A]
12.1. 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
D
Rule 22 because it was a Special General Meeting. The
holding of meetings including Special General Meeting is
govern·ed by Rules 21, 22 and 23. In terms 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
E
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
F
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 G
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
holaing of the meeting er lack of service of notice upon
H
746
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A the plaintiffs/respondents are devoid of merits and could
not have been taken into consideration while granting
injunction claimed by them. [Para 30] [775-B-C; 777-B-F]
12.2. The plaintiffs/respondents who were seeking to
challenge the impugned Rule which prescribed an
8 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
C 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.
D 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. [Para 31] [778-C-F]
E
13. 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 injunction granted by the
Judge has propensity to intervene and interfere with
F election process which had already started. If the
injunction granted by the 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
G 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 h11ld in
H the year 2003, should not have been granted by the
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
747
B.D. KAUSHIK
Judge. [Para 33] [778-H; 779-A-D]
A
14. 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 was granted
by the court restraining the appellants from implementing
8
the res,0lution dated February 18, 2003 in respect of all
advocates and not in respect of two advocates only who
have filed the Civil Suits. In the plaint, individual rights to
vote at the election of the Executive Committee of SCBA
was claimed. Even if extremely good case was made out
by the plaintiffs/respondents of the two suits, the relief C
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
D
of the suits could not have been granted. [Para 34] [779E-H; 780-A]
15.1. Having regard to the over all conditions
prevailing in SCBA, this Court proposes to give E
appropriate directions for implementation of the amended
rule which projects the principle of "One Bar One Vote".
[Para 37] [790-B]
15.2. Enrolment of advocates not practicing regularly
in the Supreme Court is inconsistent with the main aim
F
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 rul". ~, regulations and
G
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. Moreover, this Court, has framed Supreme
Court Rules, 1966 in exercise of powers under Article
H
748
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 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
members of the SCBA. Thus not on~y power to give
B 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. [Para 37] [788-E-G; 789-G-H;
c· 780-A-B]
15.3. 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 o•
D Lawyers' Chambers Rules, and as explained in Vinay
Ba/chandra Joshi 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
E 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 E 1r Association, viz.,
High Court Bar Association, District Court Bar
F 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 ls sought by the office bearers of SCBA or
the Committee appointed by it, the same shall be supplied
G 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
H Court and third list of temporary member~ of the SCBA.
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
749
B.D. KAUSHIK
These lists are directed to be put up on the SCBA
A
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
B
the date of 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 c
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, 0
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. [Para 38] [710-E-H;
711-A-E]
15.4. After preparation of the final list of the regular
E
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 SCBA and
F
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 G
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
H
750
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A revoked a member shall forfeit his right to vote or contest
any election to any post to be conductqd by the SCBA,
for a period of three years from the date of revocation.
[Para 38] [791-F-H; 792-A-B]
8
15.5. 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. [Para 39]
C [792-C]
15.6. This Court suggests that to ensure strict
compliance with the directions issued by this judgment,
an Implementation Committee consisting of three senior
advocates may be constituted. The SCBA has suggested
D names of three senior advocates practicing in this Court
be appointed as members of the said Implementation
Committee. This Court recommends that the said three
senior counsel be considered by the SCBA for being
appointed as members of the said Committee subject to
E their consent and convenience. [Para 40] [792-0-E]
Vinay Ba/chandra Joshi v. Registrar General of Supreme
Court of India (1998) 7 SCC 461 and Vineet Narain v. Union
of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 - referred to.
F
16. 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
G of the two suits pending on its file in the light of the
observations made by this Court in this judgment. [Para
41] [792-F-H]
Case Law Reference:
H
(1971) 1 sec 678
referred to
Para 25
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
751
B.D. KAUSHIK
(2005) 5 sec 632
· referred to
Para 25
(1998) 1 sec 461 .
referred to
Para 36
(1998) 1 sec 226
referred to
Para 37
(1998) 7 sec 461
referred to
Para 38
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3401 of 2003.
From the Judgment & Order dated 5.4.2003 of the Court
A
8
of Civil Judge, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 101 of 2003.
C
WITH
C.A. No. 3402 of 2003.
Harin P. Raval, ASG, Ranjit Kr. P.P. Rao and P.H. Parekh,
D
Anil Katiyar, Anando Mukherjee, Harsh N. Parekh, Sushil Kr.
Jain, K.C. Kaushik, V.K. Biju, Rajesh Aggarwal, Gaurav, Vibhu
Misra, Vishal Prasad, Ritika Sethi, Mridul Aggarwal for the
Appellant.
Dinesh Kumar Garg, B.S. Billowria, Ritu Puri, Sanjeev
E
Tayal, Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay Garg and Caveator-in-person
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
J.M. PANCHAL, J. 1. Since common issues for
F
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
G
(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
H
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C R.
A interim order dated April 5, 2003, passed by learned Civil
Judge, Delhi below application file·d 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
B 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 resolution dated February
c 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
D 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
E 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
F 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 Clause 3 of the
Memorandum of Association, which are as under: -
G
H
"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;
..
SYPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
753
B.D. KAUSHIK [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
(iii)
To promote and protect the privileges, interest and
A
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
B
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;
c
(vii) To express opinion on proposed legislation and
0
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;
(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;
E
F
(xii)
G
To promote and participate in All India Lawyers'
Association and activities connected the;ewith;
(xiii) To adopt all such matters as might be necessary
or incidental to the carrying out of the aforesaid
objects;
H
A
B
c
754
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
(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
{xvQ 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' to mean the
0
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
Mell'lber' means an association of advocates practicing in a
E 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
F 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). 'NonActive Member' is defined in Rule 3(viii) to mean a Member
G whose name is kept on the list of Members notvithstanding he
has accepted an office of profit disentitling hiri to practice. The
phrase 'Resident 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,
H admission and subscription.
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
755
B.D. KAUSHIK [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
Rule 5(v)(a) provides that in terms of Rule 5 an applicant
A
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
B
the facilities of the Association such as library and canteen etc.,
but he will not have a right to participate in general meettngs
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 c
'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 per Rule 5(v)(c) at the end of two years
period from the date of approval of temporary membership by
0
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
E
Association - (i) appearance in Supreme Court as lead counsel
in at least five matters in each year of the two years period, or
F
(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
G
conditions.
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
H
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S C.R.
A 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
B 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
c 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
Executive Committee meeting held on February 1, 2003 and
it was decided to hold a special General Body Meeting on
D 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.
E 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.