# SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS v. 8.0. KAUSHIK I.A. N0.1 OF 2012 IN

- **Citation:** [2012] 4 S.C.R. 235
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-05-07
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 3401 of 2003
- **Bench:** Altamas Kabir, Surinder Singh Nijjar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/supreme-court-bar-association-ors-v-8-0-kaushik-i-a-n0-1-of-2012-in-28386
- **Pages:** 40

## Headnote

Bar Associations:
B
c
Supreme Court Bar Association - Eligibility of the
members to contest and vote at the election to the Executive
Committee - Directions given by Supreme Court in its
judgment dated 26. 9. 2011 - Implementation Committee
0
carrying out the exercise to identify the regular practitioners
in Supreme Court - Propriety of General Body Meeting held
on 16. 1. 2012 and its resolutions - Held: Although the General
Body Meeting had been convened to consider the
implications of the judgment dated 26.9.2011, what transpired
E
later is a complete departure therefrom - The members of the
SCBA present at the meeting were bent upon their own
agendas, which were directed against the three senior
members of the Bar, who had been appointed as members
of the Implementation Committee, together with the President
- This was not a method which should have been resorted to
F
for the said purpose - The Court cannot accept the manner
in which the purported General Body Meeting of the SCBA
was conducted on 16.1.2012, and the Resolutions adopted
therein, as well as the resolutions purportedly adopted by the
Executive Committee of the SCBA on 18.1.2012 - All the
G
Resolutions purported to have been adopted in the General
Body Meeting of the SCBA held on 16.1.2012, and the
meeting of the Executive Committee being in flagrant
235
H
236
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A violation of the judgment delivered by the Court on 26.9.2011
are held to be invalid and are set aside - Consequently, the
composition of the Office Bearers of the SCBA prior to the
adoption of the alleged resolutions of 16. 1. 2012, stands
restored - The Implementation Committee shall, therefore,
B continue with the work assigned to it for identification of the
members of the SCBA eligible to vote in the elections in terms
of the directions given in the judgment dated 26.9.2011 -
Thereafter, the SCBA shall set the dates for the election
schedule, including publication of the list of members of the
c SCBA eligible to vote in the elections, so that the elections
can be held once the final list is approved and published -
Rules and Regulations of the Supreme Court Bar Association
-r.18.
D
Constitution of India, 1950:
Art. 142 read with Art.141 - Expression 'matter pending
before it' occurring in Art. 142 - Held: Would include matters
in which orders of the Supreme Court were yet to be
implemented when, particularly, such orders were necessary
E for doing complete justice to the parties to the proceedings -
When a judgment has been delivered by the Supreme Court,
it is the obligation of all citizens to act in aid thereof and to
obey the decision and the directions contained therein, in view
of the provisions of Art. 141 until and unless the same are
F modified or recalled - It is the duty of all the members of the
SCBA to abide by and to give effect to the judgments of the
Court and not to act in derogation thereof - Once the
directions had been given in the judgment disposing of the
two civil appeals, the members of the SCBA were bound by
G the directions contained therein and the said directions had
to be obeyed, however aggrieved a member of the SCBA
might be.
In pursuance of the directions issued by the
Supreme Court in its judgment dated 26.9.2011 1 passed
H 1.
[2011] 15 SCR 736.
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
237
B.D. KAUSHIK
in Civil Appeal Nos. 3401 and 3402 of 2003, and to
A
implement the Resolution of "One Bar One Vote"
adopted by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA)
in the General Body Meeting of 18.2.2003, the
Implementation Committee issued a questionnaire to all
the Members of the SCBA and in order to identify regular
B
practitioners of the SCBA, adopted certain criteria in its
meetings held on 11.1.2012 and 15.1.2012. When the
exercise was in progress, meanwhile, in the General Body
Meeting which was scheduled to be held on 16.1.2012,
apart from the regular practitioners, a large number of c
persons who were not even members of the SCBA, wer

## Text

_Characters 0–39,979 of 77,820. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39979 for what follows._

[2012] 4 S.C.R. 235
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS.
A
v.
8.0. KAUSHIK
I.A. N0.1 OF 2012
IN
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3401 of 2003 etc.)
MAY 7, 2012
[ALTAMAS KABIR & SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.]
Bar Associations:
B
c
Supreme Court Bar Association - Eligibility of the
members to contest and vote at the election to the Executive
Committee - Directions given by Supreme Court in its
judgment dated 26. 9. 2011 - Implementation Committee
0
carrying out the exercise to identify the regular practitioners
in Supreme Court - Propriety of General Body Meeting held
on 16. 1. 2012 and its resolutions - Held: Although the General
Body Meeting had been convened to consider the
implications of the judgment dated 26.9.2011, what transpired
E
later is a complete departure therefrom - The members of the
SCBA present at the meeting were bent upon their own
agendas, which were directed against the three senior
members of the Bar, who had been appointed as members
of the Implementation Committee, together with the President
- This was not a method which should have been resorted to
F
for the said purpose - The Court cannot accept the manner
in which the purported General Body Meeting of the SCBA
was conducted on 16.1.2012, and the Resolutions adopted
therein, as well as the resolutions purportedly adopted by the
Executive Committee of the SCBA on 18.1.2012 - All the
G
Resolutions purported to have been adopted in the General
Body Meeting of the SCBA held on 16.1.2012, and the
meeting of the Executive Committee being in flagrant
235
H
236
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A violation of the judgment delivered by the Court on 26.9.2011
are held to be invalid and are set aside - Consequently, the
composition of the Office Bearers of the SCBA prior to the
adoption of the alleged resolutions of 16. 1. 2012, stands
restored - The Implementation Committee shall, therefore,
B continue with the work assigned to it for identification of the
members of the SCBA eligible to vote in the elections in terms
of the directions given in the judgment dated 26.9.2011 -
Thereafter, the SCBA shall set the dates for the election
schedule, including publication of the list of members of the
c SCBA eligible to vote in the elections, so that the elections
can be held once the final list is approved and published -
Rules and Regulations of the Supreme Court Bar Association
-r.18.
D
Constitution of India, 1950:
Art. 142 read with Art.141 - Expression 'matter pending
before it' occurring in Art. 142 - Held: Would include matters
in which orders of the Supreme Court were yet to be
implemented when, particularly, such orders were necessary
E for doing complete justice to the parties to the proceedings -
When a judgment has been delivered by the Supreme Court,
it is the obligation of all citizens to act in aid thereof and to
obey the decision and the directions contained therein, in view
of the provisions of Art. 141 until and unless the same are
F modified or recalled - It is the duty of all the members of the
SCBA to abide by and to give effect to the judgments of the
Court and not to act in derogation thereof - Once the
directions had been given in the judgment disposing of the
two civil appeals, the members of the SCBA were bound by
G the directions contained therein and the said directions had
to be obeyed, however aggrieved a member of the SCBA
might be.
In pursuance of the directions issued by the
Supreme Court in its judgment dated 26.9.2011 1 passed
H 1.
[2011] 15 SCR 736.
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
237
B.D. KAUSHIK
in Civil Appeal Nos. 3401 and 3402 of 2003, and to
A
implement the Resolution of "One Bar One Vote"
adopted by the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA)
in the General Body Meeting of 18.2.2003, the
Implementation Committee issued a questionnaire to all
the Members of the SCBA and in order to identify regular
B
practitioners of the SCBA, adopted certain criteria in its
meetings held on 11.1.2012 and 15.1.2012. When the
exercise was in progress, meanwhile, in the General Body
Meeting which was scheduled to be held on 16.1.2012,
apart from the regular practitioners, a large number of c
persons who were not even members of the SCBA, were
stated to have assembled at the venue of the meeting
and obstructed the elected President of the SCBA from
conducting the meeting. I.A. 1 of 2012 in C.A. 3401 of 2003
was filed setting out in detail the events of the General
0
Body Meeting convened on 16.1.2012. The applicant
prayed that in furtherance of the judgment dated
26.9.2011, only those Members of the SCBA, whose
names would be identified and declared by the
Implementation Committee, would be entitled to
participate in the elections and/or General Body Meeting
E
of the SCBA or to vote either in the election or in the
General Body Meeting or to sign any requisition. Prayer
was also made for a direction that the meeting held on
16.1.2012 and the decisions purportedly taken therein
were null and void.
F
Disposing of the I. As. and the contempt petition, the
Court
HELD: 1.1. In the two appeals, one of the major G
issues which was canvassed was that in connection with
the holding of elections to the Executive Committee of the
SCBA, one of the methods resorted to for the purpose
of ensuring a candidate's success in the election was to
enroll a large number of members to vote for a particular
H
238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R..
A candidate. The same had given rise to a lot of discussion
and deliberation which ultimately resulted in the
amendment of Rule 18 of the Rules and Regulations of
the SCBA regarding the eligibility of such members to
contest and vote at any election. It was also proposed
B that a member who exercised his right to vote in any High
Court or District Court, Advocates' Association or Bar
Association, would not be eligible to contest for any post
of the SCBA or to cast his vote at the elections; and that
every member before casting his vote would, in a
c prescribed form, give a declaration that he had not voted
in any other election of advocates in the High Court/
District Court Bar Association. Any false declaration
would invite automatic suspension of the member from
the membership of the SCBA for a period of three years.
0 The requisition dated 10.1.2003, was placed for
consideration at a Special General Body meeting of the
SCBA on 18.2.2003, and the amendment was adopted by
a majority of 85% of the members present and voting.
Despite an attempt by some of the members to stall the
E proceedings, in the meeting of 10.3.2003, it was resolved
to constitute an Implementation Committee to implement
the Resolution on "One Bar One Vote" which had been
adopted at the General Body Meeting on 18.2.2003. [para
43] [266-H; 267-A-G]
F
1.2. The matter was considered in detail by the
Supreme Court in the appeals. It was felt necessary to
identify the regular practitioners for the purpose of
establishing the eligibility of the members who would be
entitled to vote in the elections and, accordingly, the
G Court, in its judgment dated 26.9.2011, directed that for
the said purpose the best course would be to adopt the
methodology set out in Vinay Balchandra Joshi's* case,
and, thereafter, it would be open to the Office Bearers of
the SCBA or a Small Committee, which may be appointed
H by the SCBA, consisting of three Senior Advocates, to
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
239
B.D. KAUSHIK
collect information and to prepare a list of regular A
members practising in this Court and another separate
list of members not regularly practising in this Court and
a third list of temporary members of the SCBA. After
placing the list on the SCBA website and inviting
objections, the Committee could then take a final decision
B
which would be final and binding on the members of the
SCBA, and, thereafter the final list of regular practitioners
.of the Supreme Court would be displayed by the SCBA.
[para 45] [268-B-E]
*Vinay Balchandra Joshi Vs. Registrar General of C
Supreme Court of India (1998) 7 sec 461 - relied on
1.3. Once the directions had been given in the
judgment disposing of the two civil appeals, the members
of the SCB.A were bound by the directions contained
D
· therein and the said directions had to be obeyed,
however aggrieved a member of the SCBA might be. The
agenda for the meeting of the General Body which was
convened on 16.1.2012, to consider the implications of
the judgment dated 26.9.2011 did not permit the members
E
to consider any other agenda for which notice had not
been given, whatever may have been the mood of the
members present at the meeting. [para 46] [268-F-G]
Claude-Lila Parulekar (Smt.) Vs. Sakal Papers (PJ Ltd.
& Ors. 2005 (2) SCR 1063 = (2005) 11 sec 73; Life
Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Escorts Ltd. & Ors. 1985
(3) Suppl. SCR 909 = (1986) 1 sec 264 - cited.
F
2.1. The Resolutions adopted at the General Body
Meeting on 16.1.2012, and, thereafter, on 18.1.2012 were
G
not only an affront to the majesty and dignity of the
Supreme Court, but were outright contumacious. It is
highly regrettable that the members of the Supreme Court
Bar Association, which is the leading Bar Association in
the country and whose members are expected to provide
H
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A leadership and example to other Bar Associations of the
country and to act in aid of the judgments of the Courts,
should have resorted to a Resolution not to abide by the
judgment and to even act in defiance thereof by resolving
that all members of the Bar Association would be entitled
B to vote in the elections. [para 46] [268-H; 269-A-C]
2.2. The attempt to justify the conduct of the
members of the SCBA at its meeting held on 16.1.2012
cannot be supported. The Senior Advocate, who was
present at the meeting and was stated to have chaired
C the meeting in no uncertain terms stated that he had not
chaired the General Body Meeting convened on
16.1.2012, and was not a party to the Resolution which
was adopted at such meeting. [para 46] [269-C-E]
D
2.3. Although the General Body Meeting had been
convened to consider the implications of the judgment
dated 26.9.2011, what transpired later is a complete
departure therefrom. The members of the SCBA present
at the meeting were bent upon their own agendas, which
E were directed against the three senior members of the
Bar, who had been appointed as members of the
Implementation Committee, together with the President.
This was not a method which should have been resorted
to for the said purpose. The meeting degenerated into a
F chaotic situation in which various things were done,
which were not in accordance with the provisions of the
Rules and Regulations of the SCBA, and were against the
normal rules of decorum and cannot be supported. [para
47] [269-G-H; 270-A-B]
G
2.4. The manner in which the three members of the
H
Implementation Committee whose names had been
referred to in the judgment dated 26.9.2011, were treated,
speaks volumes of the manner in which the Members of
the SCBA conducted themselves. If any member is
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
241
B.D. KAUSHIK
aggrieved by the actions of any other member and seeks
A
his removal from the membership of the SCBA, the rules
provide the manner in which the same is to be done and
certainly not arbitrarily. It is no doubt true, that some of
the members were aggrieved by the methodology
adopted by the Implementation Committee for preparing
B
the list of eligible voters for the election, but the same was
done pursuant to the directions given by this Court in its
judgment dated 26.9.2011. If the members were aggrieved
by the questionnaire which was promulgated, nothing
prevented them from approaching this Court and asking c
for modification of the contents thereof. [para 47] (270-8E]
2.5. The Court cannot accept the manner in which the
purported General Body Meeting of the SCBA was
conducted on 16.1.2012, and the Resolutions adopted
D
therein, some of which the members themselves were
unwilling to support, as well as the same resolutions
purportedly adopted by the Executive Committee of the
SCBA on 18.1.2012. [para 47] [270-E-F]
3.1. The need to implement the directions contained
in the judgment does not cease upon the judgment being
delivered. In order to enforce its orders and directions,
E
the Supreme Court can take recourse to the powers
vested in it under Art. 142 of the Constitution to do
F
complete justice to the parties. In such cases, the lis does
not cease and the expression "matter pending before it"
mentioned in Art. 142 of the Constitution, would include
matters in which orders of the Supreme Court were yet
to be implemented, when particularly such orders were
G
necessary for doing complete justice to the parties to the
proceedings. To take any other view would result in
rendering the orders of the Supreme Court meaningless.
[para 49] [271-A-C]
H
242
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A
Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Anr.
1998 (2) SCR 795 = (1998) 4 sec 409 - relied on.
Durgesh Sharma Vs. Jayshree 2008 (13) SCR 1056 =
(2008) 9 SCC 648; R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr. 1988
B (1) Suppl. SCR 1 = (1988) 2 SCC 602; Union Carbide
Corporation Vs. Union of India 1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 251 =
(1991) 4 sec 584 - referred to.
3.2. When a judgment has been delivered by this
Court, it is the obligation of all citizens to act in aid thereof
C and to obey the decision and the directions contained
therein, in view of the provisions of Art. 141 of the
Constitution, until and unless the same are modified or
recalled. Therefore, each of the Resolutions said to have
been adopted at the purported meeting of the General
D Body of the SCBA on 16.1.2012, do not muster scrutiny
and must be held to be in violation of Art. 141 of the
Constitution and cannot, therefore, be countenanced.
Apart from the fact that the agenda for the meeting did
not include the matters in respect whereof the resolutions
E have been adopted, the resolutions themselves, being in
flagrant violation of the judgment delivered by this Court
on 26.9.2011, have to be set aside. [para 50] [272-8-E]
3.3. It is the duty of all the members of the SCBA to
F abide by and to give effect to the judgments of this Court
and not to act in derogation thereof. The purported
resolution expelling the three senior members of the
Implementation Committee, appointed under the
directions of this Court, from the primary membership of
the Association, speaks volumes as to the illegality
G thereof and the deliberate and willful attempt on the part
of the members, who are alleged to have passed such a
resolution to over-reach the orders of this Court. The
same is sufficient ground to set aside the resolutions
purportedly adopted at the meeting held on 16.1.2012.
H [para 50] [272-E-G]
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
243
B.D. KAUSHIK
3.4. All the Resolutions purported to have been
A
adopted in the General Body Meeting of the SCBA held
on 16.1.2012, and the meeting of the Executive
Committee dated 18.1.2012 are held to be invalid and are
set aside. Consequently, the composition of the Office
Bearers of the SCBA prior to the adoption of the alleged
B
resolutions of 16.1.2012, stands restored. [para 52) [273B-C)
3.5. The alleged resolution expelling the three senior
members of the SCBA constituting the Implementation
Committee appointed under the directions of this Court,
C
is set aside. The Implementation Committee shall,
therefore, continue with the work assigned to it for
identification of the members of the SCBA eligible to vote
in the elections in terms of the directions given in the
judgment dated 26.9.2011. However, if any member of the
D
SCBA is aggrieved by the methodology adopted by the
Implementation Committee for identification of such
eligible members, he/she may make a representation to
the Executive Committee of the SCBA, which will look
into such objections and take a decision thereupon and,
E
if necessary, to apply to the Court, before further steps
are taken by the Implementation Committee in regard to
identification of members eligible to vote at the elections.
[para 52) [273-C-F]
F
3.6. The process of identifying the members of the
SCBA eligible to vote in the elections for selection of the
members of the Executive Committee must be completed
within four weeks from the date of individual objections
received, if any, are decided finally. Thereafter, the SCBA
G
shall set the dates for the election schedule, including
publication of the list of members of the SCBA eligible to
vote in the elections, so that the elections can be held
once the final list is approved and published. [para 52)
[273-G-H; 274-A]
H
A
B
c
D
E
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 4 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference:
(1998) 1 sec 461
relied on
para 9
2008 (13) SCR 1056
referred to
para 22
2005 (2) SCR 1063
referred to
para 22
1985 (3) Suppl. SCR 909 referred to
para 22
1988 (1) Suppl. SCR1
referred to
para 33
1991 (1) Suppl. SCR 251 referred to
para 33
1998 (2) SCR 795
referred to
para 33
1998 (2) SCR 795
relied on
para 49
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. 1 & 3.
IN
Civil Appeal No. 3401 of 2003.
AND
I.A. No. 4
IN
I.A. No. 1
IN
Civil Appeal No. 3401 of 2003 etc.
From the Judgment & Order dated 05.04.2003 of the Civil
F Judge, Delhi in Civil Suit No. 101 of 2003.
WITH
I.A. No. 1 & 3 in C.A. No. 3402 of 2003.
G Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 45 of 2012.
Ashok Desai, Rakesh Khanna, Dinesh Dwivedi, S.P.
Singh, Ranjit Kumar (A.C.), Rajesh Aggarwal, Mridul Aggarwal,
N. Rajaraman, Dr. Pravin Kumar Mutreja, Ashok Kumar
(Appellant-In-Person), Arun Kumar, Pareena Swarup, H.L.
H Srivastava (for Milind Kumar), B.K. Choudhary, D.K. Thakur,
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
245
B.D. KAUSHIK
Baldev Atreya, Sushil Kumar, Ranjit Kumar, Parmanand
A
Pandey, Ravi Shankar Kumar, B.P. Yadav, Yugal Kishore
Prasad, Rajesh Ranjan Rajesh, Devendra Jha, Nitin Kumar
Thakur, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Caveator in person, Shivaji M.
Jadhav, Md. lzhar Alam, M.P. Singh, Parmanand Pandey, S.
Simson for the appearing parties.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. I.A. No.1of2012 has been filed
by the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association
(SCAORA) in Civil Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003, which
C
were disposed of on 26th September, 2011, and form the
genesis of the events leading to the filing of the said
application. It has been a painful experience for us to have had
to hear this matter as it involves two sections of the Supreme
Court Bar Association whose unbecoming posturing has cast
D
dark shadows on the functioning of the Bar Association even
~-
in the eyes of the general public and the litigants who throng
the_ Supreme Court each day for their cases.
F
2. While Civil Appeal No.3401 of 2003 was filed by three
E
Appellants, namely, (i) Supreme Court Bar Association (Regd.)
through its Honorary Secretary, Mr. Ashok Arora; (ii) Mr. Ashok
Arora in his capacity as the Honorary Secretary of the Supreme
Court Bar Association; and (iii) Ms. Sunita B. Rao, Coordinator,
Implementation Committee, Supreme Court Bar Association,
(hereinafter referred to as "SCBA"), on the other hand, Civil
Appeal No.3402 of 2003 has been filed by the Supreme Court
Bar Association through its Honorary Secretary. Both the
Appeals are directed against the interim order dated 5th April,
2003, passed by the learned Civil Judge on an application filed
under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of G
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed in Civil Suit Nos.100
and 101 of 2003. By the common order, the Appellants were
restrained from implementing the Resolution dated February 18,
2003, amending Rule 18 of the Rules and Regulations of SCBA
till the final disposal of both the suits. While Shri B.D. Kaushik
H
246
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A is the sole Respondent in Civil Appeal No.3401 of 2003, Shri
A.K. Manchanda is the sole Respondent in Civil Appeal
No.3402 of 2003. Both the Respondents are Advocates who
are practising in Delhi and are Members of the SCBA, the
Delhi Bar Association and the Bar Association of the Tis Hazari
B Courts, Delhi.
3. The Supreme Court Bar Association is a Society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, on 25th
August, 1999, under Registration No.35478of1999. In keeping
C with the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the
SCBA has framed its Memorandum of Association and Rules
and Regulations, Rule 4 whereof divides the Members into four
separate classes, namely, :-
D
E
(i)
Resident Members;
(ii)
Non-Resident Members;
(iii)
Associate Members; and
(iv)
Non-Active Members.
Rule S(v)(a) provides that in terms of Rule 5, an Applicant
found to be suitable to be made a Member of the Association
would be made Member initially on temporary basis for a period
of two years. It also provides that a person who is made such
F a Member, would be identified as a temporary Member who
would be entitled to avail the facilities of the Association, such
as library and canteen, but would not have a right to participate
in general meetings, as prescribed in Rule 21 or to contest and
vote at the elections, as provided in Rule 18.
G
4. On 23rd January, 2003, the Office of the SCBA received
a requisition dated 1oth January, 2003, signed by 343 Members
seeking an amendment to Rule 18 regarding the eligibility of
the Members to contest and vote at an election. It was
proposed that the Member, who exercised his right to vote in
H any High Court or District Court Advocates/Bar Association,
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
247
B.D. KAUSHIK [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
would not be eligible to contest for any post of the SCBA or to
A
cast his vote at the elections. The said requisition dated 10th
January, 2003, was considered in the meeting of the Executive
Committee of the SCBA on 1st February, 2003 and a decision
was taken to hold a Special General Body Meeting on 18th
February, 2003, to consider the requisition. It appears that
B
notice for the said General Body Meeting was issued by the
SCBA on 6th February, 2003, and copies of the same were
sent to the Members along with the cause list. The notice was
also displayed on the Notice Board of the office of the SCBA
situated in the Supreme Court premises. The notices were also c
sent to different Bar Associations at Delhi, including the Delhi
Bar Association. On 18th February, 2003, the General Body
Meeting was convened in which 278 Members participated.
Some of the Members of the Association had spoken against
the requisition, but when the Resolution proposing the
D
amendment in Rule 18 of the Rules was put to vote, it was
passed by a majority of 85% of the Members present and
voting. Subsequently, at a meeting of the Executive Committee
convened on 3rd March, 2003, a Resolution was adopted to
hold election of the Office Bearers for the next session and for
the constitution of the Election Committee on 25th April, 2003.
E
An Election Committee of three Members of the SCBA was
constituted for the purpose of conducting the election. In the
said meeting, a requisition signed by 237 Members of the
SCBA to recall the Resolution dated 18th February, 2003, was
taken up for consideration, but deferred on account of the fact
that the elections had been declared. Moreover, in the meeting
F
of the Executive Committee held on 10th March, 2003, it was
resolved to constitute an Implementation Committee to
implement the Resolution of "One Bar One Vote", which was
adopted in the General Body Meeting of 18th February, 2003.
G
5. The apparent differences, which have surfaced between
the two groups of Members within the SCBA, resulted in Mr.
B.D. Kaushik filing Suit No.100 of 2003 in the Court of Shri
Sanjeev Jain, Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi, challenging the
H
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A validity of the Resolution adopted by the Executive Committee
of the SCBA on 18th February, 2003. While seeking a decree
for a declaration that the Resolution dated 18th February, 2003,
was illegal and ineffective, the Plaintiff also prayed for a decree
of perpetual injunction to restrain the SCBA and the Office
B Bearers from implementing the said Resolution dated 18th
February, 2003, in the elections of the SCBA which were
proposed to be held on 25th April, 2003. A further prayer was
made to restrain the SCBA from debarring any of the Members
of the SCBA who had already paid their subscription from
c casting their votes in the elections which were scheduled to be
held on 25th April, 2003. A similar Suit No.101 of 2003 was
filed before the same learned Judge by Shri A.K. Manchanda,
seeking the same relief as had been sought by Mr. B.D.
Kaushik in his Suit No.100 of 2003.
D
6. As indicated hereinbefore, applications were filed by the
Plaintiffs in both the suits under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to restrain
the Defendants, who are the Appellants in the two civil appeals,
from implementing the Resolution dated 18th February, 2003,
E till the final disposal of the suits. By a common order dated 5th
April, 2003, the learned Judge allowed the two applications
filed for injunction and restrained the Appellants herein from
implementing the Resolution dated 18th February, 2003,
amending Rule 18 of the Rules and Regulations of the SCBA,
F till the final disposal of the suits.
7. The Supreme Court Bar Association through its
Honorary Secretary thereupon filed the two Civil Appeal
Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003 against the said common order
G dated 5th April, 2003, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi.
Both the matters were placed before the Court in the mentioning
list of 10th April, 2003, when the matters were taken on Board
and leave was granted. Pending the proceedings, the common
order passed by the Trial Court was a.lso stayed. It was also
made clear that if any elections were held, the same would be
H
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
249
B.D. KAUSHIK [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
subject to the result of the Appeals. Thereafter, this Court
A
appointed Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, as
Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the two matters. In addition,
the Court also requested the learned Attorney General to assist
the Court. Accordingly, the Appeals were taken up for hearing
in the presence of the Amicus Curiae, the learned Attorney
B
General, Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal, who appeared on behalf of the
Appellants and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, learned Advocate, who
appeared on behalf of the original plaintiffs. Since the matter
involved the learned Advocates practising in the Supreme
Court, the Court also heard senior counsel Mr. P.P. Rao, the c
former President of the SCBA, Mr. Pravin Parekh, the present
President of the SCBA and Mr. Sushi! Kumar Jain, the
President of SCAORA. The Court also considered the
Memorandum of Association of SCBA as well as its Rules and
Regulations.
o
8. During the hearing, one of the more important issues
that surfaced was the escalating number of Members of the
SCBA to about 10,000 Members, of whom only around 2,000
Members were said to be regularly practising in the Supreme
Court. The manner in which the membership was infiltrated was
E
also brought to the notice of the Court and a definite and
deliberate allegation was made that out of the 10,000 Members
of the SCBA, not more than 2,000 Members were seen to
attend the Supreme Court regularly and the remaining 8,000
Members are seen in the Supreme Court premises only on the
F
day of the SCBA elections. It was alleged that apart from the
above, these 8,000 floating members had no interest
whatsoever in the functioning of the SCBA or the well-being of
its Members, or even the functioning of the Supreme Court of
India as a Court.
G
9. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel, and a past
President of the SCBA, with a lot of experience behind him,
asserted that in view of the overwhelming number of advocates
admitted to the membership of the SCBA. it was necessary to
H
250
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 4 S.C.R.
A identify the advocates who actually practised in the Supreme
Court in keeping with the criteria adopted by this Court for
allotment of chambers in Vinay Balchandra Joshi Vs.
Registrar General of Supreme Court of India [(1998) 7 SCC
461]. Mr. Rao submitted that the said criteria could be adopted
B in identifying the regular practitioners in the Supreme Court. In
the judgment dated 26th September, 2011, the Hon'ble Judges
had recorded that the learned advocates who had appeared
in the matter had urged the Court to give guidelines/directions
for effective implementation of the amended rule which projects
c the principle of "One Bar One Vote". Accepting the submissions
for the need to identify the members of the SCBA who regularly
practised in the Supreme Court, and also taking note of Mr.
Rao'S suggestions, the Court directed that the criteria adopted
by this Court for allotment of chambers, as explained in Vinay
0
Balchandra Joshi's case (supra), should be adopted by the
SCBA in this case also. The Court also observed that to
identify regular practitioners in the Supreme Court, it would be
open to the Office Bearers of the SCBA or a small Committee
appointed by the SCBA, consisting of three senior advocates,
to collect information about those members who had contested
E elections in any of the Court-annexed Bar Associations, such
as, the High Court Bar Association, District Court Bar
Association, Taluka Bar Association, etc., from 2005 to 2010.
The Committee of the SCBA to be appointed was, inter alia,
directed as follows :
F
"The Committee of SCBA to be appointed is hereby
directed to prepare a list of regular members practising
in the Supreme Court and another separate list of
members not regularly practising in the Supreme Court
G
and third list of temporary members of the SCBA. The lists
were directed to be put up on the SCBA website and also
on the SCBA notice board. The committee was also
directed to send a letter to each member of the SCBA
informing him about his status of membership on or before
H
28th February, 2012. An aggrieved member would be
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
251
B.D. KAUSHIK [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
entitled to make a representation within 15 days from the
A
date of receipt of the letter from the SCBA to the
Committee, which is to be appointed by the SCBA."
10. It was subsequently mentioned in the judgment that
once a declaration had been made by the Committee, it would
B
be valid till it was revoked and once it was revoked, the Member
would 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. It was also categorically indicated that
the Members of the SCBA, whose names did not figure in the
final list of regular practitioners, would not be entitled to either
C
vote at an election of the Office Bearers of the SCBA or to
contest any of the posts for which elections would be held by
the SCBA. On the suggestion of the SCBA, the Hon'ble Judges
recommended the names of Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Mr. P.P. Rao,
and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocates, practising in
D
the Supreme Court, for constituting the Implementation
Committee, subject to their consent and convenience.
11. As it appears from the materials disclosed before us,
the three aforesaid senior members of the Bar, whose names
E
had been suggested, were ultimately appointed by the SCBA
to be the members of the Implementation Committee to
implement the directions given by the Hon'ble Judges in Civil
Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003.
12. For the purpose of implementing the directions of this
F
Court contained in the judgment dated 26th September, 2011,
the Implementation Committee issued a Questionnaire to all the
Members of the SCBA. Furthermore, in order to identify the
regular practitioners of the Court, the Implementation
Committee adopted certain criteria vide its Resolution dated
G
11th January, 2012, and the Members who fulfilled the said
criteria were to be treated as regular practitioners of this Court,
along with the 754 Members to whom Chambers had already
been allotted or whose names were already included in the
approved Waiting List for allotment of Chambers. The
H
252
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 4 S.C.R.
A Resolution adopted by the Implementation Committee in its
meeting held on 11th January, 2012, is reproduced
hereinbelow :-
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
"RESOLUTION
1.
The Implementation Committee of the Supreme
Court Bar Association, in its meeting held on
11.01.2012 at 1:10 p.m. has resolved as follows:
2.
In view of the directions of the Supreme Court of
India, in its judgment in SCBA Vs. B.D. Kaushik,
_ to the effect that "the Committee of the SCBA to
be appointed is hereby directed to prepare a list
of regular members practising in this Court ...... ",
the following categories of members of SCBA, in
addition to the list of members already approved
by the Implementation Committee, are entitled to
vote at, and contest, the election of the office
bearers of the SCBA as 'regular members
practising in this Court':
(i)
All Advocates on Record who have filed cases
during the calendar year 2011.
(ii)
All Senior Advocates designated as Senior
Advocates by the Supreme Court of India, who are
resident in Delhi and attending the Supreme Court
of India.
(iii)
All members who subscribed to any of the cause
lists of the Supreme Court of India during the
calendar year 2011.
(iv)
All members who have been members of the SCBA
for the last 25 years, commencing 01.01.1986, and
have been paying subscription to the SCBA
regularly, in each one of the 25 years.
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
253
B.D. KAUSHIK [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
3.
The list of such members who are eligible to vote
A
and contest elections will be put up on the SCBA
notice board for the information of all members and
will also be circulated in the usual manner including
circulation with the daily cause list. Copies of this
list will also be available at the reception desk in
B
Library I.
4.
The persons whose names figure in this list need
not reply to the questionnaire issued earlier.
Sd/- Sd/-
Sd/-
K.K. VENUGOPAL P.P. RAO RANJIT KUMAR"
c
13. Thereafter, pursuant to a request made by some of the
Members of the SCBA to the Implementation Committee, the
said Committee by its Resolution dated 15th January, 2012,
D
included two other categories of Members who were to be
treated as regular Members of the SCBA, namely :-
E
(i)
All Members of the SCBA, who have attended the
Supreme Court of India on at least 90 days in the
Calendar Year 2011, as established from the
database showing the use of Proximity Cards
maintained by the Registry of the Supreme Court
F
of India; and
(ii)
All Live Members of the SCBA, other than
temporary Members, as on 31.12.2011.
14. While the aforesaid exercise was being undertaken by
G
the Implementation Committee, on 12th January, 2012, about
240 Members of the SCBA requested the convening of a
General Body Meeting of the SCBA. As the Executive
Committee of the SCBA had at its meeting held on 6th January,
2012, already decided to call such Meeting on 16th January,
H
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012) 4 S.C.R.
A 2012, a Circular in this regard was issued informing the
Members that the Meeting would be held on 16th January,
2012. It is alleged that on 16th January, 2012, apart from the
regular practitioners, a large number of persons who were not
even members of the SCBA, assembled at the venue of the
B meeting and obstructed Shri P.H. Parekh, the elected
President of the SCBA, from conducting the meeting.
15. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, Mrs. B. Sunita
Rao, learned Advocate and the Secretary of the Applicant
C Association, filed an application for directions, setting out in
detail the events of the General Body Meeting convened on
16th January, 2012, to consider the implementation of the
recommendations of the Implementation Committee. In the said
background, the Applicant prayed that in furtherance of the
judgment dated 26th September, 2011, only those Members
D of the SCBA, whose names would be identified and declared
by the Implementation Committee, consisting of Shri K.K.
Venugopal, Shri P.P. Rao and Shri Ranjit Kumar, Senior
Advocates, would be entitled to participate in the elections and/
or General Body Meeting of the SCBA or to vote either in the
E election or in the General Body Meeting or to sign any
requisition. Among the other prayers was a prayer for a
direction that the meeting held on 16th January, 2012, and the
decisions purportedly taken therein, were null and void. A
direction was also sought that the Implementation Committee
F comprised of Shri K.K. Venugopal, Shri P.P. Rao and Shri
Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocates, and no other person, should
be allowed to complete the task of implementing the judgment
dated 26th September, 2011.
G
16. The said two applications were taken up for
consideration and extensive submissions were made, both in
support of and against the reliefs sought for therein.
17. Appearing on behalf of the Appellant Association, Mr.
Ashok Desai, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the
H events which occurred on 16th January, 2012, at the
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
255
B.D. KAUSHIK [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
Requisition Meeting convened at the instance of some of the
A
members of the SCBA, were highly condemnable and left much
to be desired. Mr. Desai submitted that after Mr. P.H. Parekh,
the elected President of the SCBA had been shouted down, it
was unceremoniously declared that he had resigned and his
resignation from the post of President of the SCBA had been
B
accepted in the meeting by a Resolution said to have been
adopted at the meeting itself. Mr. Desai submitted that seeing
the manner in which the meeting was being taken over by a
certain section of the persons present at the venue of the
meeting, Mr. Parekh requested Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned c
Senior Advocate and a former President of the SCBA, to
preside over and conduct the meeting. Mr. Desai further
submitted that even Mr. Ram Jethmalani was not permitted to
preside over the meeting and Mr. Pramod Swarup, a Senior
Advocate and Member of the Executive Council, was prevailed
D
upon to preside over the meeting, where certain resolutions
were allegedly adopted, which were not only unlawful, but even
contumacious.
18. Mr. Desai then referred to the letter dated 17th January,
2012, addressed by one Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate, to Hon'ble
E
the Chief Justice of India enclosing copies of the Resolution
purportedly passed by the Members of the SCBA on 16th
January, 2012, in its Special General Meeting. The said
Resolution purported to have been adopted on 16th January,
2012, is extracted hereinbelow :-
F
"RESOLUTION
Special General Body Meeting held on 16.01.2012 at
4.15 PM at Supreme Court Lawns passed the
following Resolutions through Voice Vote and Show
G
of Hands :
The Special General Body of the SCBA, presided over by
Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate (who was invited to
H
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 4 S.C.R.
A
preside over the meeting by President Mr. P.H. Parekh),
has resolved that :
(1)
Under the Rule making powers of SCBA (General
Body) it is resolved that the judgment of Hon'ble
B
Supreme Court dated 26.9.2011 passed in the
case of HCBA Vs. B.D. Kaushik should not be
given effect to.
(2)
The Implementation Committee proposed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated
c
26th September, 2011 passed in the case of
SCBA Vs. B.D. Kaushik has itself ignored the
judgment and is left with no authority to issue any
list of the regular practicing Members of SCBA as
it has acted in a manner which is detrimental to the
D
interest of Members of SCBA and, therefore, the
Implementation Committee stands dissolved.
(3)
The Members of Implementation Committee,
namely, (i) Shri P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate, (ii) Shri
E
K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, and (iii) Shri Ranjit
Kumar, Sr.