This case involves the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and its internal conflicts regarding resolutions adopted during a General Body Meeting. The appellant challenges the validity of these resolutions, particularly ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
Page 1 REPORTABL
E
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO.1 OF 2012
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3401 OF 2003
Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors.… Appellants
Vs.
B.D. Kaushik … Respondent
WITH
I.A. NO.1 OF 2012 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3402
OF 2003
AND
CONT. PET. (C) NO.45 OF 2012 IN C.A.
NOs.3401 & 3402 OF 2003
J U D G M E N T
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
Page 2 1. I.A. No.1 of 2012 has been filed by the
Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association
(SCAORA) in Civil Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003,
which were disposed of on 26
th
September, 2011, and
form the genesis of the events leading to the
filing of the said application. It has been a
painful experience for us to have had to hear this
matter as it involves two sections of the Supreme
Court Bar Association whose unbecoming posturing
has cast dark shadows on the functioning of the Bar
Association even in the eyes of the general public
and the litigants who throng the Supreme Court each
day for their cases.
2.While Civil Appeal No.3401 of 2003 was filed by
three Appellants, namely, (i) Supreme Court Bar
Association (Regd.) through its Honorary Secretary,
Mr. Ashok Arora; (ii) Mr. Ashok Arora in his
capacity as the Honorary Secretary of the Supreme
Court Bar Association; and (iii) Ms. Sunita B. Rao,
2
Page 3 Coordinator, Implementation Committee, Supreme
Court Bar Association, (hereinafter referred to as
“SCBA”), on the other hand, Civil Appeal No.3402 of
2003 has been filed by the Supreme Court Bar
Association through its Honorary Secretary. Both
the Appeals are directed against the interim order
dated 5
th
April, 2003, passed by the learned Civil
Judge on an application filed under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, filed in Civil Suit Nos.100
and 101 of 2003. By the common order, the
Appellants were restrained from implementing the
Resolution dated February 18, 2003, amending Rule
18 of the Rules and Regulations of SCBA till the
final disposal of both the suits. While Shri B.D.
Kaushik is the sole Respondent in Civil Appeal
No.3401 of 2003, Shri A.K. Manchanda is the sole
Respondent in Civil Appeal No.3402 of 2003. Both
the Respondents are Advocates who are practising in
Delhi and are Members of the SCBA, the Delhi Bar
3
Page 4 Association and the Bar Association of the Tis
Hazari Courts, Delhi.
3. The Supreme Court Bar Association is a Society
registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860, on 25
th
August, 1999, under Registration
No.35478 of 1999. In keeping with the provisions of
the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the SCBA has
framed its Memorandum of Association and Rules and
Regulations, Rule 4 whereof divides the Members
into four separate classes, namely, :-
(i) Resident Members;
(ii)Non-Resident Members;
(iii)Associate Members; and
(iv)Non-Active Members.
Rule 5(v)(a) provides that in terms of Rule 5,
an Applicant found to be suitable to be made a
Member of the Association would be made Member
initially on temporary basis for a period of two
years. It also provides that a person who is made
4
Page 5 such a Member, would be identified as a temporary
Member who would be entitled to avail the
facilities of the Association, such as library and
canteen, but would not have a right to participate
in general meetings, as prescribed in Rule 21 or to
contest and vote at the elections, as provided in
Rule 18.
4.On 23
rd
January, 2003, the Office of the SCBA
received a requisition dated 10
th
January, 2003,
signed by 343 Members seeking an amendment to Rule
18 regarding the eligibility of the Members to
contest and vote at an election. It was proposed
that the Member, who exercised his right to vote in
any High Court or District Court Advocates/Bar
Association, would not be eligible to contest for
any post of the SCBA or to cast his vote at the
elections. The said requisition dated 10
th
January,
2003, was considered in the meeting of the
Executive Committee of the SCBA on 1
st
February,
5
Page 6 2003 and a decision was taken to hold a Special
General Body Meeting on 18
th
February, 2003, to
consider the requisition. It appears that notice
for the said General Body Meeting was issued by the
SCBA on 6
th
February, 2003, and copies of the same
were sent to the Members along with the cause list.
The notice was also displayed on the Notice Board
of the office of the SCBA situated in the Supreme
Court premises. The notices were also sent to
different Bar Associations at Delhi, including the
Delhi Bar Association. On 18
th
February, 2003, the
General Body Meeting was convened in which 278
Members participated. Some of the Members of the
Association had spoken against the requisition, but
when the Resolution proposing the amendment in Rule
18 of the Rules was put to vote, it was passed by a
majority of 85% of the Members present and voting.
Subsequently, at a meeting of the Executive
Committee convened on 3
rd
March, 2003, a Resolution
was adopted to hold election of the Office Bearers
6
Page 7 for the next session and for the constitution of
the Election Committee on 25
th
April, 2003. An
Election Committee of three Members of the SCBA was
constituted for the purpose of conducting the
election. In the said meeting, a requisition
signed by 237 Members of the SCBA to recall the
Resolution dated 18
th
February, 2003, was taken up
for consideration, but deferred on account of the
fact that the elections had been declared.
Moreover, in the meeting of the Executive Committee
held on 10
th
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 18
th
February, 2003.
5.The apparent differences, which have surfaced
between the two groups of Members within the SCBA,
resulted in Mr. B.D. Kaushik filing Suit No.100 of
2003 in the Court of Shri Sanjeev Jain, Commercial
7
Page 8 Civil Judge, Delhi, challenging the validity of the
Resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of
the SCBA on 18
th
February, 2003. While seeking a
decree for a declaration that the Resolution dated
18
th
February, 2003, was illegal and ineffective,
the Plaintiff also prayed for a decree of perpetual
injunction to restrain the SCBA and the Office
Bearers from implementing the said Resolution dated
18
th
February, 2003, in the elections of the SCBA
which were proposed to be held on 25
th
April, 2003.
A further prayer was made to restrain the SCBA from
debarring any of the Members of the SCBA who had
already paid their subscription from casting their
votes in the elections which were scheduled to be
held on 25
th
April, 2003. A similar Suit No.101 of
2003 was filed before the same learned Judge by
Shri A.K. Manchanda, seeking the same relief as had
been sought by Mr. B.D. Kaushik in his Suit No.100
of 2003.
8
Page 9 6.As indicated hereinbefore, applications were
filed by the Plaintiffs in both the suits under
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of
the Code of Civil Procedure to restrain the
Defendants, who are the Appellants in the two civil
appeals, from implementing the Resolution dated 18
th
February, 2003, till the final disposal of the
suits. By a common order dated 5
th
April, 2003, the
learned Judge allowed the two applications filed
for injunction and restrained the Appellants herein
from implementing the Resolution dated 18
th
February, 2003, amending Rule 18 of the Rules and
Regulations of the SCBA, till the final disposal of
the suits.
7.The Supreme Court Bar Association through its
Honorary Secretary thereupon filed the two Civil
Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003 against the said
common order dated 5
th
April, 2003, passed by the
learned Civil Judge, Delhi. Both the matters were
9
Page 10 placed before the Court in the mentioning list of
10
th
April, 2003, when the matters were taken on
Board and leave was granted. Pending the
proceedings, the common order passed by the Trial
Court was also stayed. It was also made clear that
if any elections were held, the same would be
subject to the result of the Appeals. Thereafter,
this Court appointed Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned
Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae to assist the
Court in the two matters. In addition, the Court
also requested the learned Attorney General to
assist the Court. Accordingly, the Appeals were
taken up for hearing in the presence of the Amicus
Curiae, the learned Attorney General, Mr. Rajesh
Aggarwal, who appeared on behalf of the Appellants
and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, learned Advocate, who
appeared on behalf of the original plaintiffs.
Since the matter involved the learned Advocates
practising in the Supreme Court, the Court also
heard senior counsel Mr. P.P. Rao, the former
10
Page 11 President of the SCBA, Mr. Pravin Parekh, the
present President of the SCBA and Mr. Sushil Kumar
Jain, the President of SCAORA. The Court also
considered the Memorandum of Association of SCBA as
well as its Rules and Regulations.
8.During the hearing, one of the more important
issues that surfaced was the escalating number of
Members of the SCBA to about 10,000 Members, of
whom only around 2,000 Members were said to be
regularly practising in the Supreme Court. The
manner in which the membership was infiltrated was
also brought to the notice of the Court and a
definite and deliberate allegation was made that
out of the 10,000 Members of the SCBA, not more
than 2,000 Members were seen to attend the Supreme
Court regularly and the remaining 8,000 Members are
seen in the Supreme Court premises only on the day
of the SCBA elections. It was alleged that apart
from the above, these 8,000 floating members had no
11
Page 12 interest whatsoever in the functioning of the SCBA
or the well-being of its Members, or even the
functioning of the Supreme Court of India as a
Court.
9.Mr. P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel, and a
past President of the SCBA, with a lot of
experience behind him, asserted that in view of the
overwhelming number of advocates admitted to the
membership of the SCBA, it was necessary to
identify the advocates who actually practised in
the Supreme Court in keeping with the criteria
adopted by this Court for allotment of chambers in
Vinay Balchandra Joshi Vs. Registrar General of
Supreme Court of India [(1998) 7 SCC 461]. Mr. Rao
submitted that the said criteria could be adopted
in identifying the regular practitioners in the
Supreme Court. In the judgment dated 26
th
September, 2011, the Hon’ble Judges had recorded
that the learned advocates who had appeared in the
12
Page 13 matter had urged the Court to give
guidelines/directions for effective implementation
of the amended rule which projects the principle of
“One Bar One Vote”. Accepting the submissions for
the need to identify the members of the SCBA who
regularly practised in the Supreme Court, and also
taking note of Mr. Rao’s suggestions, the Court
directed that the criteria adopted by this Court
for allotment of chambers, as explained in Vinay
Balchandra Joshi ’s case (supra), should be adopted
by the SCBA in this case also. The Court also
observed that to identify regular practitioners in
the Supreme Court, it would be open to the Office
Bearers of the SCBA or a small Committee appointed
by the SCBA, consisting of three senior advocates,
to collect information about those members who had
contested elections in any of the Court-annexed Bar
Associations, such as, the High Court Bar
Association, District Court Bar Association, Taluka
Bar Association, etc., from 2005 to 2010. The
13
Page 14 Committee of the SCBA to be appointed was, inter
alia, directed as follows :
“The Committee of SCBA to be appointed is
hereby directed to prepare a list of
regular members practising in the Supreme
Court and another separate list of members
not regularly practising in the Supreme
Court and third list of temporary members
of the SCBA. The lists were directed to
be put up on the SCBA website and also on
the SCBA notice board. The committee was
also directed to send a letter to each
member of the SCBA informing him about his
status of membership on or before 28
th
February, 2012. An aggrieved member would
be entitled to make a representation
within 15 days from the date of receipt of
the letter from the SCBA to the Committee,
which is to be appointed by the SCBA.”
10. It was subsequently mentioned in the judgment
that once a declaration had been made by the
Committee, it would be valid till it was revoked
and once it was revoked, the Member would forfeit
14
Page 15 his right to vote or contest any election to any
post to be conducted by the SCBA, for a period of
three years from the date of revocation. It was
also categorically indicated that the Members of
the SCBA, whose names did not figure in the final
list of regular practitioners, would not be
entitled to either vote at an election of the
Office Bearers of the SCBA or to contest any of the
posts for which elections would be held by the
SCBA. On the suggestion of the SCBA, the Hon’ble
Judges recommended the names of Mr. K.K. Venugopal,
Mr. P.P. Rao, and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior
Advocates, practising in the Supreme Court, for
constituting the Implementation Committee, subject
to their consent and convenience.
11.As it appears from the materials disclosed
before us, the three aforesaid senior members of
the Bar, whose names had been suggested, were
ultimately appointed by the SCBA to be the members
15
Page 16 of the Implementation Committee to implement the
directions given by the Hon’ble Judges in Civil
Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003.
12.For the purpose of implementing the directions
of this Court contained in the judgment dated 26
th
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 11
th
January, 2012, and the Members
who fulfilled the said criteria were to be treated
as regular practitioners of this Court, along with
the 754 Members to whom Chambers had already been
allotted or whose names were already included in
the approved Waiting List for allotment of
Chambers. The Resolution adopted by the
Implementation Committee in its meeting held on 11
th
January, 2012, is reproduced hereinbelow :-
16
Page 17 “RESOLUTION
1. The Implementation Committee of the Supreme
Court Bar Association, in its meeting held
on 11.01.2012 at 1:10 p.m. has resolved as
follows:
2.In view of the directions of the Supreme
Court of India, in its judgment in SCBA Vs.
B.D. Kaushik, to the effect that “the
Committee of the SCBA to be appointed is
hereby directed to prepare a list of regular
members practising in this Court……”, the
following categories of members of SCBA, in
addition to the list of members already
approved by the Implementation Committee,
are entitled to vote at, and contest, the
election of the office bearers of the SCBA
as ‘regular members practising in this
Court’:
(i) All Advocates on Record who have
filed cases during the calendar year
2011.
(ii)All Senior Advocates designated as
Senior Advocates by the Supreme Court
of India, who are resident in Delhi
and attending the Supreme Court of
India.
(iii)All members who subscribed to any of
the cause lists of the Supreme Court
of India during the calendar year
2011.
17
Page 18 (iv)All members who have been members of
the SCBA for the last 25 years,
commencing 01.01.1986, and have been
paying subscription to the SCBA
regularly, in each one of the 25
years.
3.The list of such members who are eligible to
vote and contest elections will be put up on
the SCBA notice board for the information of
all members and will also be circulated in
the usual manner including circulation with
the daily cause list. Copies of this list
will also be available at the reception desk
in Library I.
4.The persons whose names figure in this list
need not reply to the questionnaire issued
earlier.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
K.K. VENUGOPAL P.P. RAO RANJIT KUMAR”
13.Thereafter, pursuant to a request made by some
of the Members of the SCBA to the Implementation
Committee, the said Committee by its Resolution
dated 15
th
January, 2012, included two other
categories of Members who were to be treated as
regular Members of the SCBA, namely :-
18
Page 19 (i) All Members of the SCBA, who have attended
the Supreme Court of India on at least 90
days in the Calendar Year 2011, as
established from the database showing the
use of Proximity Cards maintained by the
Registry of the Supreme Court of India;
and
(ii)All Live Members of the SCBA, other than
temporary Members, as on 31.12.2011.
14.While the aforesaid exercise was being
undertaken by the Implementation Committee, on 12
th
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 6
th
January, 2012,
already decided to call such Meeting on 16
th
January, 2012, a Circular in this regard was issued
informing the Members that the Meeting would be
held on 16
th
January, 2012. It is alleged that on
19
Page 20 16
th
January, 2012, apart from the regular
practitioners, a large number of persons who were
not even members of the SCBA, assembled at the
venue of the meeting and obstructed Shri P.H.
Parekh, the elected President of the SCBA, from
conducting the meeting.
15.In view of the aforesaid circumstances, Mrs. B.
Sunita Rao, learned Advocate and the Secretary of
the Applicant Association, filed an application for
directions, setting out in detail the events of the
General Body Meeting convened on 16
th
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 26
th
September,
2011, only those Members of the SCBA, whose names
would be identified and declared by the
Implementation Committee, consisting of Shri K.K.
Venugopal, Shri P.P. Rao and Shri Ranjit Kumar,
20
Page 21 Senior Advocates, would be entitled to participate
in the elections and/or General Body Meeting of the
SCBA or to vote either in the election or in the
General Body Meeting or to sign any requisition.
Among the other prayers was a prayer for a
direction that the meeting held on 16
th
January,
2012, and the decisions purportedly taken therein,
were null and void. A direction was also sought
that the Implementation Committee comprised of Shri
K.K. Venugopal, Shri P.P. Rao and Shri Ranjit
Kumar, Senior Advocates, and no other person,
should be allowed to complete the task of
implementing the judgment dated 26
th
September,
2011.
16.The said two applications were taken up for
consideration and extensive submissions were made,
both in support of and against the reliefs sought
for therein.
21
Page 22 17. Appearing on behalf of the Appellant
Association, Mr. Ashok Desai, learned Senior
Advocate, submitted that the events which occurred
on 16
th
January, 2012, at the Requisition Meeting
convened at the instance of some of the members of
the SCBA, were highly condemnable and left much to
be desired. Mr. Desai submitted that after Mr.
P.H. Parekh, the elected President of the SCBA had
been shouted down, it was unceremoniously declared
that he had resigned and his resignation from the
post of President of the SCBA had been accepted in
the meeting by a Resolution said to have been
adopted at the meeting itself. Mr. Desai submitted
that seeing the manner in which the meeting was
being taken over by a certain section of the
persons present at the venue of the meeting, Mr.
Parekh requested Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior
Advocate and a former President of the SCBA, to
preside over and conduct the meeting. Mr. Desai
further submitted that even Mr. Ram Jethmalani was
22
Page 23 not permitted to preside over the meeting and Mr.
Pramod Swarup, a Senior Advocate and Member of the
Executive Council, was prevailed upon to preside
over the meeting, where certain resolutions were
allegedly adopted, which were not only unlawful,
but even contumacious.
18.Mr. Desai then referred to the letter dated
17
th
January, 2012, addressed by one Mr. Arun Kumar,
Advocate, to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India
enclosing copies of the Resolution purportedly
passed by the Members of the SCBA on 16
th
January,
2012, in its Special General Meeting. The said
Resolution purported to have been adopted on 16
th
January, 2012, is extracted hereinbelow :-
“RESOLUTION
Special General Body Meeting held on 16.01.2012
at 4.15 PM at Supreme Court Lawns passed the
following Resolutions through Voice Vote and
Show of Hands :
The Special General Body of the SCBA, presided
over by Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate (who
23
Page 24 was invited to preside over the meeting by
President Mr. P.H. Parekh), has resolved that :
(1)Under the Rule making powers of SCBA
(General Body) it is resolved that the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated
26.9.2011 passed in the case of HCBA Vs.
B.D. Kaushik should not be given effect
to.
(2)The Implementation Committee proposed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its
judgment dated 26
th
September, 2011 passed
in the case of SCBA Vs. B.D. Kaushik has
itself ignored the judgment and is left
with no authority to issue any list of the
regular practicing Members of SCBA as it
has acted in a manner which is detrimental
to the interest of Members of SCBA and,
therefore, the Implementation Committee
stands dissolved.
(3)The Members of Implementation Committee,
namely, (i) Shri P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate,
(ii) Shri K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate,
and (iii) Shri Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate,
are forthwith expelled from the Primary
Membership of the SCBA.
(4)All the active Members of SCBA, without
any classification, will be eligible to
vote in the annual elections, subject to
their clearing the annual subscription/
dues and filing of the Declaration Form.
(5)Mr. P.H. Parekh, President of SCBA has
publicly announced his resignation from
his post with immediate effect. His
24
Page 25 resignation is forthwith accepted by the
General Body.
The Meeting ended with thanks to the
Chair.
Resolution signed by more than 400 SCBA
Members present during the Special General
Body Meeting.”
19.Mr. Desai also drew our attention to the
minutes of the meeting of the Executive Committee
purported to have been held on 18
th
January, 2012,
chaired by Mr. Pramod Swarup, Senior Executive
Member, who had purportedly chaired the General
Body Meeting held on 16
th
January, 2012. Mr. Desai
pointed out from the minutes that the same
resolution which had been adopted at the General
Body Meeting of 16
th
January, 2012, was also adopted
at the purported meeting of the Executive Committee
held on 18
th
January, 2012.
20.On the resolutions said to have been adopted
both at the Special General Body Meeting and the
25
Page 26 meeting of the Executive Committee of the SCBA
allegedly held thereafter, Mr. Desai submitted that
the said resolutions are per se in disregard of the
judgment of this Court in SCBA Vs. B.D. Kaushik and
are, therefore, null and void. Mr. Desai also
pointed out that the resolution starts by recording
that “The Special General Meeting of the SCBA was
presided over by Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate”,
but Mr. Ram Jethmalani, who was present in the
Court stated that he did not preside over the
meeting and he had also expressed his view that
everybody should speak in a decorous manner. Mr.
Parekh, the President and all concerned parties
should be given a full hearing and all grievances
should be ventilated in accordance with law. Mr.
Desai submitted that the statement made by Mr. Ram
Jethmalani in Court had not been contradicted by
anyone.
26
Page 27 21.Mr. Desai also submitted that the Special
General Body Meeting of the SCBA had been convened
on 16
th
January, 2012, only for the purpose of
considering the implication of the judgment dated
26
th
September, 2011, passed in Civil Appeal
Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003, and the agenda of the
said meeting clearly reflected the same. Mr. Desai
submitted that there was no suggestion that the
meeting was held to consider :
a)that the validity of the aforesaid
judgment should not be given effect
to;
b)that the Implementation Committee
should be dissolved;
(c)that the Members of the Implementation
Committee, namely, Mr. K.K. Venugopal,
Mr. P.P. Rao and Mr. Ranjit Kumar,
learned Senior Advocates should be
expelled from primary membership of
the Association;
(d)that the members who were not eligible
should be entitled to vote,
notwithstanding the judgment delivered
in B.D. Kaushik’s case (supra); or
27
Page 28 (e)that anybody’s resignation should be
accepted.
22.Referring to Section 173(2) of the Companies
Act, 1956, Mr. Desai contended that as had been
repeatedly held by this Court, at any Extraordinary
General Meeting, along with a notice of the
meeting, a statement setting out all material
facts in respect of each item of business to be
transacted at the meeting, had to be annexed. In
this regard, Mr. Desai referred to the decision of
this Court in Claude-Lila Parulekar (Smt.) Vs.
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. & Ors. [(2005) 11 SCC 73], in
which it was categorically held that in respect of
special business an explanatory statement had to be
annexed to the notice of the Board Meeting and in
the absence thereof, any decision taken in
connection with such special business would be
invalid. A similar view had earlier been expressed
in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Escorts
Ltd. & Ors. [(1986) 1 SCC 264].
28
Page 29 23.Mr. Desai submitted that even Mr. Dinesh
Dwivedi and Mr. S.P. Singh, learned Senior
Advocates, had, at the very first instance,
submitted that Resolution Nos.1 and 4 relating to
the decision not to give effect to the judgment of
this Court dated 26
th
September, 2011, and that all
active members of SCBA without any classification
would be eligible to vote in the annual elections,
could not be defended and submitted that the same
be disregarded and treated as withdrawn. Mr. Desai
urged that even the decision to expel the three
senior members of the SCBA, who had been appointed
as the members of the Implementation Committee, was
not only irregular, but in complete violation of
the Rules relating to expulsion of members of the
SCBA and in breach of the principles of natural
justice. Mr. Desai also urged that when the
aforesaid resolution was sent to the Vice-President
of the SCBA on 17
th
January, 2012, the majority of
29
Page 30 the members of the Executive Committee by a
circular resolution of even date requested him to
withdraw the same and on such request being
communicated to Mr. Parekh, he withdrew his
resignation on 18
th
January, 2012. The meeting of
the Executive Committee on 18
th
January, 2012, was,
therefore, wholly unauthorized and all the members
of the Executive Committee were so informed by way
of SMS and E-mails dated 18
th
January, 2012. Mr.
Desai submitted that the Minutes of the meeting
held on 18
th
January, 2012, were unanimously
recalled by the Executive Committee on 19
th
January,
2012, in their entirety. It was also pointed out
that out of the 21 members, 18 members were present
in that meeting of the Executive Committee held on
19
th
January, 2012.
24.Mr. Desai further submitted that Rule 35 of the
SCBA Rules and Regulations provided for the removal
of a member from the SCBA on receipt of a written
30
Page 31 complaint. Rule 35 provides the procedure for
dealing with such complaints and categorically
indicates that only if the Committee was satisfied
that there was a prima facie case against a member
complained against, it would direct the complaint,
together with the report of the Committee or Sub-
Committee, to be placed before a General Meeting of
the Association and afford the member concerned a
reasonable opportunity of being heard in person.
25.Mr. Desai submitted that certain subsequent
developments are also required to be taken note of
and, in particular, a requisition notice dated 23
rd
March, 2012, signed by 2/3
rd
of the Members of the
SCBA, many of whom were signatories to the General
Body Meeting resolution dated 16
th
January, 2012,
requiring the Executive Committee to initiate the
process of election and to publish the list of
voters on or before 17
th
April, 2012, failing which
the Members would call a General Body Meeting and
31
Page 32 pass a resolution of “No Confidence” against the
Executive Committee. Mr. Desai submitted that the
requisition was considered by the Executive
Committee of the SCBA and in its meeting of 11
th
April, 2012, it was resolved that since the matter
had been heard by this Court and judgment had been
reserved on 4
th
April, 2012, the requisition notice
dated 23
rd
March, 2012, should be placed before this
Court with an application seeking proper
directions.
26.Mr. Desai submitted that yet another
requisition notice dated 18
th
April, 2012, was
received on 20
th
April, 2012, purported to have been
signed by 252 advocates, calling upon the members
of the Executive Committee to convene a General
Body Meeting on 25
th
April, 2012, failing which the
requisitionists would hold a General Body Meeting
on that day and pass a resolution of ‘No
32
Page 33 Confidence’ and also fix the date of holding of the
elections of the SCBA in the month of May, 2012.
27.Mr. Desai submitted that the manner in which
the Special General Meeting was held on 16
th
January, 2012, was highly contumacious and,
therefore, void, and was liable to be declared as
such. Furthermore, the subsequent notices received
for holding Requisition Meetings containing a
demand for finalization of the Voters’ List, was
completely contrary to the directions given in the
judgment dated 26
th
September, 2011, particularly,
when an illegal resolution was purportedly adopted
expelling the three members of the Implementation
Committee from the primary membership of the SCBA.
28.Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Advocate,
who appeared for the Supreme Court Advocate-on-
Record Association, submitted that as far as the
maintainability of Interlocutory Application No.1
of 2012 is concerned, there could not be any doubt
33
Page 34 that the directions issued under Article 142 of the
Constitution are binding upon all, unless they are
recalled or set aside in a manner known to law.
Mr. Salve submitted that any attempt to defy the
directions would empower this Court with
jurisdiction to take appropriate action for
compelling compliance, including by way of
contempt. Mr. Salve submitted that the application
had been made in furtherance of the judgment dated
26
th
September, 2011, and the underlying object of
the application was to uphold the majesty of this
Court and to ensure that the directions were duly
implemented in the spirit in which they were given.
Mr. Salve submitted that since the resolutions said
to have been adopted by the General Body of the
Association on 16
th
January, 2012, were in defiance
of the directions issued by this Court, this Court
would always have jurisdiction to deal with such
violation or to give further directions for
effective implementation thereof.
34
Page 35 29.Mr. Salve submitted that the Respondents had
themselves accepted that Resolution No.1 was in
defiance of the judgment of this Court. As a
result, the other Resolutions were a fall-out of
Resolution No.1 and could not, therefore, be
accepted. Referring to Resolution No.5 relating to
Mr. P.H. Parekh’s resignation, Mr. Salve submitted
that the same was not part of the agenda for the
meeting held on 16
th
January, 2012. Mr. Salve
submitted that the minutes of the meetings held on
16
th
and 18
th
January, 2012, lacked credence and
acceptability on account of the circumstances in
which they were adopted.
30.On the question of whether the Implementation
Committee acted contrary to the judgment dated 26
th
September, 2011, Mr. Salve submitted that the
Implementation Committee acted in keeping with the
guidelines in Vinay Balchandra Joshi ’s case (supra)
as was directed by this Court and the object of the
35
Page 36 directions given in the judgment dated 26
th
September, 2011, was to make a list of those who
regularly practise in the Supreme Court, as they
alone would have voting rights in the matter of
elections of the Office Bearers of the Supreme
Court Bar Association in terms of the judgment.
Such task had to be performed by the Committee
within a given time and whatever steps that were
taken by the Implementation Committee were in the
light of such directions.
31.Mr. Salve submitted that given the manner in
which the purported Resolutions were adopted in the
meetings said to have been held on 16
th
and 18
th
January, 2012, the same were liable to be declared
as non est in law. Mr. Salve further submitted that
a direction should be given to the Implementation
Committee to continue with the work of finalizing
the Voters’ List, as per the directions given in
the judgment dated 26
th
September, 2012, on a war
36
Page 37 footing and to publish the Voters’ List as early as
possible, so that the subsequent steps could be
taken for conducting the elections of the Office
Bearers of SCBA expeditiously.
32.Appearing on behalf of some of the members of
the SCBA, Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned Senior
Advocate, firstly submitted that Interlocutory
Application No.1 filed in Civil Appeal No.3401 of
2003, was not maintainable, either under Order 47
of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, or under Order 13
Rule 3 thereof. Furthermore, since the judgment
dated 26
th
September, 2011, was not under challenge,
even the provisions of Order 40 of the Supreme
Court Rules were not applicable to the application.
Mr. Dwivedi, however, accepted the fact that
Resolution Nos.1 and 4, which, according to him,
had been adopted at the Special General Body
Meeting of the SCBA held on 16
th
January, 2012,
37
Page 38 could not be supported and he was not, therefore,
pressing the same.
33.Mr. Dwivedi urged that once the judgment had
been delivered, the Court became functus officio
and any further proceeding in relation to the
disposed of matter could be only by way of the
provisions for review, both under the Code of Civil
Procedure, as also under Order 47 of the Supreme
Court Rules, 1966. Reiterating his earlier
submissions, Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi submitted that the
judgment dated 26
th
September, 2011, had attained
finality and could not be modified or altered in
any manner. In support of his aforesaid
submissions, Mr. Dwivedi firstly referred to and
relied upon the decision of this Court in Durgesh
Sharma Vs. Jayshree [(2008) 9 SCC 648], wherein, as
a general principle, it was held that the inherent
powers vested in a Court, could not be invoked when
there were specific provisions in law in that
38
Page 39 regard. The decisions in A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S.
Nayak & Anr. [(1988) 2 SCC 602]; Union Carbide
Corporation Vs. Union of India [(1991) 4 SCC 584]
and Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of
India & Anr. [(1998) 4 SCC 409], were also referred
to, wherein, it had, inter alia, been held that
Article 142 of the Constitution empowering the
Supreme Court to pass a decree or to make such
order, as is necessary for doing complete justice
in any case or matter pending before it, cannot be
invoked as a matter of course. It was urged that a
lis would have to be pending before the Supreme
Court in order to invoke jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constitution. Mr. Dwivedi urged that in
the present case, since the appeals themselves had
been disposed of, there was no pending lis which
would allow the invocation of the extraordinary
powers vested in the Supreme Court under Article
142 of the Constitution.
39
Page 40 34.Mr. Dwivedi submitted that in an application of
this nature, the extraordinary powers vested in the
Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution
could not be invoked to allow the prayers made and
the same being entirely misconceived, were liable
to be rejected.
35.Representing the Supreme Court Advocates
Association (Non-AOR), Mr. S.P. Singh, learned
Senior Advocate, firstly submitted that I.A. Nos.1
and 2 of 2012, filed on behalf of the SCAORA, were
not maintainable, since they neither fell within
the ambit of a Review Petition under Article 137 of
the Constitution of India or Order XL of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1966. It was also urged that
SCAORA was not a necessary party and the
application filed by it was in gross abuse of the
process of the Court. Mr. Singh submitted that
none of the rights of any of the members of SCAORA
have been affected by the Resolutions adopted by
40
Page 41 the Governing Body of the SCBA on 16
th
January, 2012
and, if at all any clarification was required, the
members of the Implementation Committee could have
come and obtained directions from the Court.
36.Mr. Singh submitted that the main intention of
the requisition meeting was to bring to the notice
of the Executive Committee of the SCBA various
irregularities committed by the Implementation
Committee which needed to be rectified. It was
submitted that what had transpired at the meeting
of the General Body of SCBA on 16
th
January, 2012,
was a reflection of the mood of the members of the
SCBA, who were of the view that the Executive
Committee of the SCBA was trying to stall the
elections which were required to be conducted
within the month of May, 2012. Mr. Singh
reiterated the submissions made by Mr. Dwivedi and
submitted that since the General Body of the SCBA
had accepted the resignation of Mr. Parekh given
41
Page 42 voluntarily, the subsequent meeting of the
Executive Committee held in his absence could not
be faulted, since even the Vice-President of the
Association refused to preside over the meeting.
37.Mr. Singh also urged that the Implementation
Committee had deviated from the directions given in
the judgment passed by this Court on 26
th
September,
2011, and the questionnaire issued by it contained
various anomalies and excluded even Senior
Advocates practising in this Court but living
outside Delhi, such as in Noida and Gurgaon, from
being eligible to vote.
38.Apart from the above, the names of various
Advocates and Advocates-on-Record had been wrongly
shown in the list which was also bound to create
confusion. For example, the name of Shri M.C.
Bhandare, the present Governor of Orissa and the
name of a sitting Judge of the Madras High Court,
have been included in the list, which clearly went
42
Page 43 to show that the Implementation Committee had not
applied its mind to the preparation of the Voters’
List. Mr. Singh also urged that the consideration
of valid members who were eligible to vote was to
be considered by the SCBA which meant the General
Body and not the Executive Committee alone.
Accordingly, even the appointment of Mr. K.K.
Venugopal, Mr. P.P. Rao and Mr. Ranjit Kumar,
Senior Advocates, as members of the Implementation
Committee, was irregular and unlawful and any
decision taken by the Committee must be held to be
void.
39.Mr. Singh submitted that various mal-practices
were resorted to by the persons who have been at
the helm of affairs of SCBA, by throwing lavish
parties and using other means to attract votes at
the time of election to the Executive Committee of
the Association. Mr. Singh submitted that far from
protecting the interests of the members of the Bar,
43
Page 44 some of the present members of the Executive
Committee were more concerned about their own
aggrandizement to the detriment of the interests of
the members of the Bar. Mr. Singh submitted that
the Resolutions adopted by the General Body Meeting
of the SCBA at the meeting held on 16
th
January,
2012 and the subsequent meeting of the Executive
Committee held on 18
th
January, 2012, had been
legally adopted and could not be interfered with,
especially in a Petition which was not
maintainable.
40.Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned Senior Advocate,
briefly appeared for some of the members and urged
that having regard to the questionnaire published
by the members of the Implementation Committee,
some clarification was necessary as to the voting
rights of the members of the Association.
41.Apart from Dr. Dhawan, among others who
addressed the Court, were Mr. Ashok Arora, learned
44
Page 45 Advocate and former Honorary Secretary of the SCBA,
Mr. Pramod Swarup, Senior Executive Member of the
SCBA, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, former President of
SCAORA. Each of them spoke, either in support of
the submissions made by Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi and Mr.
S.P. Singh or in favour of those made by Mr. Harish
Salve and Mr. Ashok Desai.
42.Since Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior
Advocate, besides being a member of the
Implementation Committee, was also appointed as
amicus curiae by this Court in the matter, we
requested him to file written submissions in the
matter. In a brief submission, Mr. Ranjit Kumar
submitted that despite all the apprehensions
expressed by Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi and Mr. S.P. Singh,
that the rights of the practising lawyers in the
Supreme Court to form an Association had been
curtailed or that the provisions of the Societies
Registration Act were being violated by the
45
Page 46 Implementation Committee, none of the aforesaid
rights of the members of the SCBA had been
curtailed in any manner. Mr. Ranjit Kumar
submitted that all that the judgment dated 26
th
September, 2011 in B.D. Kaushik’s case had done was
to regulate the right to vote and for that purpose
the Implementation Committee was appointed to
oversee the same. The membership of the members of
SCBA was not affected in any way on account of such
regulations.
43. From the facts as narrated hereinabove, one
thing is clear that in view of the order of interim
injunction passed in the two suits filed by Mr.
B.K. Kaushik and Mr. A.K. Manchanda restraining the
SCBA from implementing its Resolution dated 18
th
February, 2003, amending Rule 18 of the Rules and
Regulations, till the final disposal of both the
suits, the two appeals were filed by SCBA through
its Honorary Secretary, Mr. Ashok Arora, and Ms.
46
Page 47 Sunita B. Rao as Coordinator of the Implementation
Committee. When the two appeals were taken up for
hearing, one of the major issues which was
canvassed was that in connection with the holding
of elections to the Executive Committee of the
SCBA, one of the methods resorted to for the
purpose of ensuring a candidate’s success in the
election was to enroll a large number of members to
vote for a particular candidate. The same had
given rise to a lot of discussion and deliberation
which ultimately resulted in the amendment of Rule
18 regarding the eligibility of such members to
contest and vote at any election. It was also
proposed that a member who exercised his right to
vote in any High Court or District Court,
Advocates’ Association or Bar Association, would
not be eligible to contest for any post of the SCBA
or to cast his vote at the elections. It was also
proposed that every member before casting his vote
would, in a prescribed form, give a declaration
47
Page 48 that he had not voted in any other election of
advocates in the High Court/District Court Bar
Association. Any false declaration would invite
automatic suspension of the member from the
membership of the SCBA for a period of three years.
The requisition dated 10
th
January, 2003, was placed
for consideration at a Special General Body meeting
of the SCBA on 18
th
February, 2003, and the
amendment was adopted by a majority of 85% of the
members present and voting. Thereafter, at a
further meeting of the Executive Committee convened
on 3
rd
March, 2003, it was resolved to hold election
of the Office Bearers/Executive Members for the
next session and for the constitution of the
Election Committee. It was further resolved to
hold elections on 25
th
April, 2003. Despite an
attempt by some of the members to stall the
proceedings, in the meeting of 10
th
March, 2003, it
was resolved to constitute an Implementation
Committee to implement the Resolution on “One Bar
48
Page 49 One Vote” which had been adopted at the General
Body Meeting on 18
th
February, 2003.
44.As indicated hereinbefore, the challenge to the
Resolution dated 18
th
February, 2003, in the two
suits filed by Mr. B.K. Kaushik and Mr. A.K.
Manchanda resulted in the appeals being preferred
in this Court by the SCBA through its Honorary
Secretary, Mr. Ashok Arora.
45.The matter was, thereafter, considered in
detail by the Hon’ble Judges who took up the
appeals for hearing and directed that it was
necessary to identify the regular practitioners for
the purpose of establishing the eligibility of the
members who would be entitled to vote in the
elections and, accordingly, the Hon’ble Judges
directed that for the said purpose the best course
would be to adopt the methodology set out in Vinay
Balchandra Joshi ’s case (supra), and, thereafter,
it would be open to the Office Bearers of the SCBA
49
Page 50 or a Small Committee, which may be appointed by the
SCBA, consisting of three Senior Advocates, to
collect information and to prepare a list of
regular members practising in this Court and
another separate list of members not regularly
practising in this Court and a third list of
temporary members of the SCBA. After placing the
list on the SCBA website and inviting objections,
the Committee could then take a final decision
which would be final and binding on the members of
the SCBA, and, thereafter the final list of regular
practitioners of the Supreme Court would be
displayed by the SCBA.
46.Once such directions had been given in the
judgment disposing of the two civil appeals filed
by the SCBA through Mr. Ashok Arora, the members of
the SCBA were bound by the directions contained
therein and the said directions had to be obeyed,
however aggrieved a member of the SCBA might be.
50
Page 51 The agenda for the meeting of the General Body
which was convened on 16
th
January, 2012, to
consider the implications of the judgment in B.D.
Kaushik’s case, did not permit the members to
consider any other agenda for which notice had not
been given, whatever may have been the mood of the
members present at the meeting. If any member felt
aggrieved by the judgment delivered on 26
th
September, 2011, he could have taken recourse to
other lawful means available to him under the law.
The Resolutions adopted at the General Body Meeting
on 16
th
January, 2012, and, thereafter, on 18
th
January, 2012, were not only an affront to the
majesty and dignity of the Supreme Court, but were
outright contumacious. It is highly regrettable
that the members of the Supreme Court Bar
Association. which is the leading Bar Association
in the country and whose members are expected to
provide leadership and example to other Bar
Associations of the country and to act in aid of
51
Page 52 the judgments of the Courts, should have resorted
to a Resolution not to abide by the judgment and to
even act in defiance thereof by resolving that all
members of the Bar Association would be entitled to
vote in the elections. Although, Mr. Dinesh
Dwivedi did concede that the second and fourth
Resolutions adopted at the meeting of 16
th
January,
2012, should not be taken into consideration, the
attempt to justify the conduct of the members of
the SCBA at its meeting held on 16
th
January, 2012,
cannot be supported. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned
Senior Advocate, who was present at the meeting
submitted in no uncertain terms that he had not
chaired the General Body Meeting convened on 16
th
January, 2012, and was not a party to the
Resolutions which had been adopted at such meeting.
On the other hand, Mr. Jethmalani submitted that he
had cautioned the Members not to act in an unruly
manner and to allow the proceedings to be conducted
in a lawful and free manner and to allow each
52
Page 53 member, who had a grievance, including Mr. Parekh,
to express his views and then to adopt any
Resolution that the members felt was needed to be
adopted in the light of the agenda of the meeting.
47.We cannot help but notice that although the
General Body Meeting had been convened to consider
the implications of the judgment dated 26
th
September, 2011, what transpired later is a
complete departure therefrom. The members of the
SCBA present at the meeting were bent upon their
own agendas, which were directed against the three
senior members of the Bar, who had been appointed
as members of the Implementation Committee,
together with the President. In our view, this was
not a method which should have been resorted to for
the said purpose. The meeting degenerated into a
chaotic situation in which various things were
done, which were not in accordance with the
provisions of the Rules and Regulations of the
53
Page 54 SCBA, and were against the normal rules of decorum
and cannot be supported, despite attempts made to
do so by Mr. Dwivedi and Mr. Singh. The manner in
which the three members of the Implementation
Committee whose names had been referred to by the
Hon’ble Judges in the judgment dated 26
th
September,
2011, were treated, speaks volumes of the manner in
which the Hon’ble Members of the SCBA conducted
themselves. If any member is aggrieved by the
actions of any other member and seeks his removal
from the membership of the SCBA, the rules provide
the manner in which the same is to be done and
certainly not arbitrarily. It is no doubt true,
that some of the members were aggrieved by the
methodology adopted by the Implementation Committee
for preparing the list of eligible voters for the
election, but the same was done pursuant to the
directions given by this Court in its judgment
dated 26
th
September, 2011. If the members were
aggrieved by the questionnaire which was
54
Page 55 promulgated, nothing prevented them from
approaching this Court and asking for modification
of the contents thereof. We are, therefore, unable
to accept the manner in which the purported General
Body Meeting of the SCBA was conducted on 16
th
January, 2012, and the Resolutions adopted therein,
some of which the members themselves were unwilling
to support, as well as the same resolutions
purportedly adopted by the Executive Committee of
the SCBA on 18
th
January, 2012.
48.At this stage, it will also be necessary for us
to deal with the question of maintainability of
I.A. Nos.1 and 2 raised both by Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi
and by Mr. S.P. Singh. Their main contention is
that once the judgment has been delivered by the
Court, the Court becomes functus officio and in the
absence of any pending lis, this Court could not
have entertained the said two applications.
55
Page 56 49.We are unable to accept the said submission
made by Mr. Dwivedi and Mr. Singh, since the need
to implement the directions contained in the
judgment does not cease upon the judgment being
delivered. In order to enforce its orders and
directions, the Supreme Court can take recourse to
the powers vested in it under Article 142 of the
Constitution to do complete justice to the parties.
In such cases, the lis does not cease and the
expression “matter pending before it” mentioned in
Article 142 of the Constitution, would include
matters in which orders of the Supreme Court were
yet to be implemented, when particularly such
orders were necessary for doing complete justice to
the parties to the proceedings. To take any other
view would result in rendering the orders of the
Supreme Court meaningless. In this regard,
reference may be made to the Constitution Bench
decision of this Court in Supreme Court Bar
Association Vs. Union of India & Anr. [(1998) 4 SCC
56
Page 57 409], referred to hereinbefore, wherein the
question before the Bench was the power of the
Supreme Court to punish for contempt of itself
under Article 129 read with Article 142 of the
Constitution. While considering the same and
holding that the power vested in the Supreme Court
under Article 142 should not be used to supplant
substantive law applicable to a case, being
curative in nature, their Lordships also observed
that the plenary powers of this Court under Article
142 of the Constitution are inherent in the Court
and are complementary to those powers which are
specifically conferred on the Court by various
statutes, though are not limited by those statutes.
This Court held that these powers also exist
independent of the statutes with a view to doing
complete justice between the parties. This power
exists as a separate and independent basis of
jurisdiction, apart from the statutes, and stands
upon the foundation for preventing injustice in the
57
Page 58 process of litigation and to do complete justice
between the parties. This Court further observed
that this plenary jurisdiction is thus the residual
source of power which this Court may draw upon as
necessary, whenever it is just and equitable to do
so and, in particular, to ensure the observance of
the due process of law, to do complete justice
between the parties, while administering justice
according to law. In the event the parties do not
or refuse to abide by its decision, the Supreme
Court would have no option, but to take recourse to
the provisions of Article 129 of the Constitution
or under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971.
50.When a judgment has been delivered by this
Court, it is the obligation of all citizens to act
in aid thereof and to obey the decision and the
directions contained therein, in view of the
provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution,
58
Page 59 until and unless the same are modified or recalled.
In the said background, each of the Resolutions
said to have been adopted at the purported meeting
of the General Body of the SCBA on 16
th
January,
2012, do not muster scrutiny and must be held to be
in violation of Article 141 of the Constitution and
cannot, therefore, be countenanced. Apart from the
fact that the agenda for the meeting did not
include the matters in respect whereof the
resolutions have been adopted, the resolutions
themselves, being in flagrant violation of the
judgment delivered by this Court on 26
th
September,
2011, have to be set aside. It is the duty of all
the members of the SCBA to abide by and to give
effect to the judgments of this Court and not to
act in derogation thereof. The purported resolution
expelling the three senior members of the
Implementation Committee, appointed under the
directions of this Court, from the primary
membership of the Association, speaks volumes as to
59
Page 60 the illegality thereof and the deliberate and
willful attempt on the part of the members, who are
alleged to have passed such a resolution to over-
reach the orders of this Court. The same is
sufficient ground to set aside the resolutions
purportedly adopted at the meeting held on 16
th
January, 2012, notwithstanding the technical
arguments advanced by Mr. Dwivedi and Mr. Singh.
51.Since the members of the Bar are involved, we
do not wish to add anything further, except to
express the hope that in future this kind of unruly
and undignified behaviour will not be repeated.
Even if the members of the SCBA have any grievance
against the judgment delivered on 26
th
September,
2011, they have to obey the same in the scheme of
judicial discipline.
52.Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2012 in Civil Appeal
Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003 is allowed. All the
Resolutions purported to have been adopted in the
60
Page 61 General Body Meeting of the SCBA held on 16
th
January, 2012, and the meeting of the Executive
Committee are held to be invalid and are set aside.
Consequently, the composition of the Office Bearers
of the SCBA prior to the adoption of the alleged
resolutions of 16
th
January, 2012, stand restored.
The alleged resolution expelling the three senior
members of the SCBA constituting the Implementation
Committee appointed under the directions of this
Court, is set aside. The Implementation Committee
shall, therefore, continue with the work assigned
to it for identification of the members of the SCBA
eligible to vote in the elections in terms of the
directions given in the judgment dated 26
th
September, 2011. However, if any member of the
SCBA is aggrieved by the methodology adopted by the
Implementation Committee for identification of such
eligible members, he/she may make a representation
to the Executive Committee of the SCBA within a
fortnight from date and if such a representation or
61
Page 62 representations is or are received within the
specified period, the Executive Committee of the
SCBA will look into such objections and take a
decision thereupon and, if necessary, to apply to
the Court, before further steps are taken by the
Implementation Committee in regard to
identification of members eligible to vote at the
elections. For a period of two weeks, the
Implementation Committee shall not take any further
steps in the matter, and shall, thereafter, resume
the work of identification of members of the SCBA
eligible to vote on the instructions that may be
given by the Executive Committee of the SCBA in
this regard. The process of identifying the
members of the SCBA eligible to vote in the
elections for selection of the members of the
Executive Committee must be completed within four
weeks from the date of individual objections
received, if any, are decided finally. Thereafter,
the SCBA shall set the dates for the election
62
Page 63 schedule, including publication of the list of
members of the SCBA eligible to vote in the
elections, so that the elections can be held once
the final list is approved and published.
53.We expect all the members of the SCBA to
cooperate with the Implementation Committee and the
Executive Committee of the SCBA to complete the
publication of the list of members of the SCBA
eligible to vote in the elections within the time
specified, and, thereafter, to cooperate in the
conducting of the elections for the election of the
Office Bearers of the SCBA.
54.I.A. No.1 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos.3401 and
3402 of 2003 is thus disposed of. Let copies of
this order be made available to the President of
the SCBA and the members of the Implementation
Committee for immediate compliance. A copy of the
operative portion of this judgment may also be put
up on the web-site and Notice Board of the SCBA for
63
Page 64 general information of all of its members. All
connected IAs are also disposed of by this order.
55.Having regard to the observations made
hereinabove, the Contempt Petition No.45 of 2012,
filed in the civil appeals by Dr. Parvin Kumar
Mutreja, Advocate, and two others, is also disposed
of by virtue of this order.
……………………………………………………… J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
……………………………………………………… J.
(SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)
New Delhi
Date: 07.05.2012
64
Legal Notes
Add a Note....