|REPORTABLE |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. NO.5 OF 2012
IN
I.A. NO.1 OF 2011
IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3401 & 3402 OF 2003
1
2 Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors. … Appellants
Vs.
2 B.D. Kaushik … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
1. I.A.No.5 of 2012 has been filed on behalf of the Supreme Court Bar
Association (SCBA) in Civil Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003 which were
disposed of by this Court on 7th May, 2012, with various directions. In
fact, this application arises out of the said directions.
2. The aforesaid appeals had been filed on behalf of the Supreme Court
Bar Association and its then Honorary Secretary, Mr. Ashok Arora, and Ms.
Sunita B. Rao, Coordinator, Implementation Committee of the Supreme Court
Bar Association, against an interim order passed by the Civil Judge on 5th
April, 2003, on an application for injunction filed in Civil Suit Nos.100
and 101 of 2003. In the said appeals various questions were raised
regarding the administration of the Supreme Court Bar Association. One of
the questions raised was with regard to the amendment of Rule 18 of the
SCBA Rules governing the eligibility of the members of the SCBA to contest
the elections to be elected and to elect the Office Bearers of the
Association. After an extensive hearing, the appeals were disposed of by a
detailed judgment with various directions, on the basis of the principle of
“One Bar One Vote” projected by the learned Advocates who appeared in the
matter.
3. While disposing of the said appeals the Hon’ble Judges noticed that
there were many Advocates, admitted as members of the SCBA, who did not
practise regularly in the Supreme Court and were members of other Bar
Associations and that the majority of them made their presence felt only
during elections for the Office Bearers of the SCBA. This Court was,
therefore, called upon to devise a mechanism by which those members of the
SCBA who practised regularly in this Court could be identified as members
who could be entitled to vote to elect the Office Bearers of the SCBA, and
those who would not be entitled, while retaining their membership. After
considering the matter at length, Their Lordships came to the conclusion
that in order to identify those advocates who practised regularly in the
Supreme Court, the criteria adopted by this Court for allotment of
Chambers, as explained in Vinay Balchandra Joshi Vs. Registrar General of
Supreme Court of India [(1998) 7 SCC 461], should be adopted for the
purpose of identifying the members who would be entitled to vote to elect
the Office Bearers of the SCBA. Their Lordships, accordingly, directed
that the criteria adopted in Vinay Balchandra Joshi’s case (supra), should
be adopted by the SCBA and its Office Bearers to identify those advocates
who practised regularly in the Supreme Court. A further direction was given
that the Office Bearers of the SCBA or a small Committee to be appointed by
the SCBA, consisting of three Senior Advocates, should take steps to
identify the regular practitioners in the manner indicated in the order,
and, thereafter, to prepare a list of members regularly 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. These lists were
directed to be posted on the SCBA website and also on the SCBA Notice
Board. It was also directed that a letter should be sent by the SCBA to
each member, informing him about the status of his membership, on or before
February 28, 2012. Any aggrieved member would be entitled to make a
representation to the Committee within 15 days from the date of receipt of
the letter from the SCBA, and if a request was made to be heard in person,
the representation was to be heard by the Committee and a decision
thereupon was to be rendered in the time specified therein. The decision of
the Committee was to be communicated to the member concerned and the same
was to be final, conclusive and binding on the member of the SCBA.
Thereafter, a final list of advocates regularly practising in this Court
was to be displayed by the SCBA.
4. Several other directions were also given as to what was to be done
after the final list of the regular practitioners was made ready and
published.
The Court also found that the amendment made in Rule 18 of the SCBA Rules
was legal and valid and that no right of the Advocates had been infringed
by such amendment.
5. In keeping with the suggestions made on behalf of the SCBA and the
recommendations of the Court, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Mr. P.P. Rao, and Mr.
Ranjit Kumar, all Senior Advocates, practising in the Supreme Court, were
appointed as the members of the Implementation Committee. After their
appointment, the members of the Implementation Committee issued a
questionnaire on 2nd January, 2012, which was forwarded to all the members
of the SCBA, to be filled up and returned to the office of the SCBA for the
purposes indicated in the judgment itself. The questionnaire was meant for
Senior Advocates, Advocates-on-Record and Non-Advocates-on-Record. The
same was prepared in keeping with the procedure followed in Vinay
Balchandra Joshi’s case (supra). Thereafter, the Implementation Committee
held a meeting on 11th January, 2012 and adopted the following resolutions
:
“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.
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.”
6. At a further meeting of the Implementation Committee held on 15th
January, 2012, certain other resolutions were adopted identifying some of
the members of the SCBA who were not required to fill up the questionnaire,
except to indicate the category under which they claimed to be regular
members practising in the Supreme Court.
7. Thereafter, certain incidents took place to which we need not refer
in these proceedings. However, certain disputes arose between the members
of the Supreme Bar Association regarding the criteria laid down by the
Implementation Committee for identification of members who are regularly
practising in the Supreme Court. As a consequence, Interlocutory
Application No.5 came to be filed on behalf of the Supreme Court Bar
Association seeking clarification and directions in regard to the criteria
evolved by the Implementation Committee.
8. The said application was heard in the presence of the members of the
SCBA and the Implementation Committee and certain suggestions were made
which we feel need to be taken into consideration by the Implementation
Committee while identifying the members of the SCBA who were regularly
practising in the Supreme Court for the purpose of determining their
eligibility to vote to elect the Office Bearers of the SCBA. In fact,
certain suggestions were made with regard to criteria evolved by the
Implementation Committee.
9. The first criteria laid down by the Implementation Committee that all
the members of the SCBA who had 50 appearances and/or 20 filings in a year,
should be considered to be regular practitioners in the Supreme Court, was
duly accepted. A suggestion was also made to include advocates who have
been continuously representing the State Governments or the Union
Government before the Supreme Court for at least three years and have a
minimum of 50 appearances for such Government, in the category of regular
practitioners with right to vote. Another suggestion was made to include
Advocates, who were Government Standing Counsel or counsel appearing for
the Government in the Supreme Court and all Advocates-on-Record in the said
category. It was also suggested that non-Advocates-on-Record who were in
the panel of Amicus Curiae, approved by the Supreme Court Registry, and
members who are working as Mediators in the Supreme Court Mediation Centre,
be also included in this category. The said suggestions were found to be
sound and were accepted.
10. The next suggestion of the Implementation Committee was with regard
to the inclusion of all Senior Advocates of the Supreme Court, who are
resident in Delhi and attending the Supreme Court. It was rightly pointed
out that in view of the close proximity of the satellite townships, which
had grown up around Delhi, such Senior Advocates who resided in Noida,
Gurgaon, Faridabad and Ghaziabad, should also be included in this category.
The said suggestion is sound and is accepted.
11. Yet another criteria for identification of regular practitioners in
the Supreme Court as suggested by the Implementation Committee was that all
members of the SCBA who had attended the Supreme Court at least 90 days in
the calendar year 2011, as established by the database showing the use of
proximity cards maintained by the Registrar of the Supreme Court, could
also be included in the list of regular practitioners. It was felt that
instead of attendance of 90 days, the same should be reduced to 60 days,
which suggestion is duly accepted. As a supplement to the above, it is also
accepted that appearances before the Chamber Judge, as also before the
Registrar’s Courts, in the years 2009 and 2010, will be counted towards the
total number of appearances.
12. One of the suggestions made by the Implementation Committee with
regard to the directions contained in the judgment delivered in the Civil
Appeals regarding publication of details of the Voters’ List on the
website, showing the different categories of members of the SCBA who were
recognized as regular practitioners and those who were not, was also taken
up for consideration. It was felt that such publication could adversely
affect the learned Advocates who were not shown to be regular practitioners
in the Supreme Court. It was generally felt that the publication on the
website should not be resorted to and individual members should be informed
of their status either by E-mail or through SMS on their mobile phones. The
objection has merit and is allowed and such publication need not be
effected.
13. It was specifically felt that allotment of Chambers, other than in
the Supreme Court, should not be made a criteria for identifying members
who were regular practitioners in the Supreme Court and the said decision
was also considered and accepted.
14. It was lastly indicated that persons who had contested elections to
the Executive Committee of any Court annexed Bar Association, other than
the SCBA, during any of the years from 2007 to 2012, could not be allowed
to vote to elect the Office Bearers of the SCBA on the “One Bar One Vote”
principle, or to attend the General Body meetings of the SCBA. The same
would also include a person who had cast his vote in any election to the
Executive Committee of any Court annexed Bar Association, other than the
SCBA, for the abovementioned years. The said suggestion is also accepted
and approved.
15. I.A. No.5 filed in the disposed of Appeals is, therefore, disposed of
with a direction to the Members of the Implementation Committee to modify
the criteria suggested by it in the light of the above suggestions, which
have been accepted in this order, for the purpose of identifying members of
the SCBA, who are regular practitioners in the Supreme Court, for the
purposes indicated in the judgment dated 26th September, 2011.
16. The Members of the Implementation Committee are directed to take
expeditious steps in finalizing the Voters’ List of members of the SCBA
entitled to cast their votes in the election of Office Bearers of the SCBA,
and, thereafter, to set the programme for the election of the Office
Bearers and conduct the same as expeditiously as possible. Till then, the
arrangement with regard to the management of the SCBA, as is existing,
shall continue.
………………………………………………………J.
(ALTAMAS KABIR)
………………………………………………………J.
(J. CHELAMESWAR)
New Delhi
Dated :July 20, 2012.
-----------------------
15
