1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO. 126 OF 2015
Ajayinder Sangwan and Ors. .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. .... Respondent(s)
O R D E R
R.K. Agrawal, J.
1) A bunch of Interlocutory Applications for
clarification/impleadment/direction/intervention/ appropriate
orders/modification, in the lead matter, has been filed after the
order passed by this Court on 14.12.2017, is being disposed of
by this common order.
2) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
IA Nos. 14049, 14055, 14059 and 14062 of 2018
2
3) The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is
that learned Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu,
who is ex-officio member of the State Bar Council, has written
a letter dated 15.01.2018 expressing apprehension on his
ability to conduct free and fair elections to the State Bar
Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. It was also brought to
the attention of this Court the order dated 23.01.2018 passed
by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court wherein the
court had come to the conclusion for appointment of a neutral
committee of retired Judges either of the Supreme Court of
India or of the Madras High Court to oversee the election.
However, the court did not pass any order as the matter was
pending before this Court.
4) In the application for directions filed on behalf of the BCI
dated 23.01.2018, it has been stated that the
Tribunal/Committees have been constituted to oversee the
elections to be held by the respective State Bar Councils. So
far as the elections to be held for the Bar Council to the State
of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is concerned, the Committee
constituted by the BCI consists of the following persons,
3
namely, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Gupta, former Chief Justice
of the Jharkhand High Court, Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.
Sudanthiram, former Judge, Madras High Court and Hon’ble
Mr. Justice V.D. Gyani, former Judge, Madhya Pradesh High
Court. The aforementioned Committee has been entrusted to
look into the affairs of the elections to the State Bar Council of
Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The Committee consists of
retired Chief Justice/Judges of various High Courts and we do
not find any good ground to constitute any another Committee
in its place.
5) For the reasons mentioned above, the interlocutory
applications are accordingly dismissed.
IA Nos. 9727 and 7520 of 2018
6) By these two applications, the applicants, who are
practicing advocates in the State of Kerala seek impleadment
as also modification of the election schedule finalized by the
BCI.
7) In view of the application for directions filed on behalf of
the BCI on 23.01.2018, the election schedule for the State of
Kerala has been fixed and the date of election is notified as
4
25.03.2018. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants
contended that the day of election though being Sunday, is a
festival day celebrated in the State and therefore, it would not
be possible for the majority of the voters to cast their vote. A
request was made to pre-pone the date of election from
25.03.2018 to 18.03.2018.
8) Considering the special facts and circumstances of the
case, we pre-pone the date of election for Bar Council of Kerala
from 25.03.2018 to 18.03.2018, however, rest of the election
schedule, as finalized by the BCI, will remain the same. The
applications are disposed of accordingly.
IA Nos. 11955 and 11959 of 2018
9) By the above two applications, the applicants seek a
direction to the BCI and the Bar Council of Maharashtra &
Goa to permit the advocates of these States, who are on the
electoral rolls, to cast their vote at New Delhi. Further, all the
applicants hail from Maharashtra and Goa and have settled in
Delhi for the purpose of legal practice. A reference has been
invited to the Resolution passed by the BCI wherein the BCI
has requested learned Secretary General of this Court to
5
consider providing sufficient space to enable the advocates
who are registered with different State Bar Councils and are
on the electoral lists of the respective State Bar Councils to
cast their votes at New Delhi itself. However, no response has
been received by the BCI so far.
10) Owing to the election schedule having already been
finalized, we do not find any ground to permit the applicants
or the advocates who are practicing at New Delhi to cast their
votes at New Delhi instead of their respective States.
IA No. 12811 of 2018
11) The present application has been filed by the Bar Council
of Rajasthan seeking rescheduling of the date of election from
28.03.2018 to 05.04.2018 on the ground that the Rajasthan
High Court has holidays from 24.03.2018 to 01.04.2018 and
all the members who are practicing in the High Court would
not be able to exercise their franchise owing to holidays in the
Court. We do not find any good ground to defer the date of
election on the pretext of holidays as it would not be proper for
us to reschedule the election which has already been fixed for
28.03.2018. The application is, therefore, rejected.
6
IA No. 14854 of 2018
12) By means of present application, the applicant, who is
enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi, seeks a
direction to the effect that his name be included in the
electoral list for the reason that he had submitted all the
requisite documents within time. However, we find that the
applicant had not provided the copies of the original
documents as a result of which his name was not included in
the electoral roll.
13) We have given our thoughtful consideration to the plea
raised by the applicant. In our view, no ground has been
made out for directing the Bar Council of Delhi to include the
name of the applicant in the electoral roll. The application is
rejected accordingly.
IA No. 13749 of 2018
14) By means of this application, the applicant, who is
practicing as an advocate and is enrolled with the Bar Council
of Andhra Pradesh seeks a direction to conduct elections and
direct the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council and Telangana State
7
Bar Council to conduct election as per the scheduled declared
by this Court.
15) In the application for directions filed on behalf of the Bar
Council of India dated 23.01.2018, we find that the election
schedule for the State of Andhra Pradesh has been fixed by
the BCI, however, there is no mention of the election schedule
for the State of Telangana. It appears that the Bar Council of
Telangana has not yet come into existence and therefore, the
election in the State Bar Council of Telangana has not been
fixed.
16) In view of the above, in the present facts and
circumstances, we do not find any reason to direct the BCI to
hold election for the State Bar Council of Telangana. The
application is rejected.
...…………….………………………J.
(R.K. AGRAWAL)
.…....…………………………………J.
(ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 5, 2018.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO. 126 OF 2015
Ajayinder Sangwan and Ors. .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. .... Respondent(s)
O R D E R
R.K. Agrawal, J.
1) A bunch of Interlocutory Applications for
clarification/impleadment/direction/intervention/ appropriate
orders/modification, in the lead matter, has been filed after the
order passed by this Court on 14.12.2017, is being disposed of
by this common order.
2) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
IA Nos. 14049, 14055, 14059 and 14062 of 2018
2
3) The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is
that learned Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu,
who is ex-officio member of the State Bar Council, has written
a letter dated 15.01.2018 expressing apprehension on his
ability to conduct free and fair elections to the State Bar
Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. It was also brought to
the attention of this Court the order dated 23.01.2018 passed
by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court wherein the
court had come to the conclusion for appointment of a neutral
committee of retired Judges either of the Supreme Court of
India or of the Madras High Court to oversee the election.
However, the court did not pass any order as the matter was
pending before this Court.
4) In the application for directions filed on behalf of the BCI
dated 23.01.2018, it has been stated that the
Tribunal/Committees have been constituted to oversee the
elections to be held by the respective State Bar Councils. So
far as the elections to be held for the Bar Council to the State
of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is concerned, the Committee
constituted by the BCI consists of the following persons,
3
namely, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Gupta, former Chief Justice
of the Jharkhand High Court, Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.
Sudanthiram, former Judge, Madras High Court and Hon’ble
Mr. Justice V.D. Gyani, former Judge, Madhya Pradesh High
Court. The aforementioned Committee has been entrusted to
look into the affairs of the elections to the State Bar Council of
Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The Committee consists of
retired Chief Justice/Judges of various High Courts and we do
not find any good ground to constitute any another Committee
in its place.
5) For the reasons mentioned above, the interlocutory
applications are accordingly dismissed.
IA Nos. 9727 and 7520 of 2018
6) By these two applications, the applicants, who are
practicing advocates in the State of Kerala seek impleadment
as also modification of the election schedule finalized by the
BCI.
7) In view of the application for directions filed on behalf of
the BCI on 23.01.2018, the election schedule for the State of
Kerala has been fixed and the date of election is notified as
4
25.03.2018. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants
contended that the day of election though being Sunday, is a
festival day celebrated in the State and therefore, it would not
be possible for the majority of the voters to cast their vote. A
request was made to pre-pone the date of election from
25.03.2018 to 18.03.2018.
8) Considering the special facts and circumstances of the
case, we pre-pone the date of election for Bar Council of Kerala
from 25.03.2018 to 18.03.2018, however, rest of the election
schedule, as finalized by the BCI, will remain the same. The
applications are disposed of accordingly.
IA Nos. 11955 and 11959 of 2018
9) By the above two applications, the applicants seek a
direction to the BCI and the Bar Council of Maharashtra &
Goa to permit the advocates of these States, who are on the
electoral rolls, to cast their vote at New Delhi. Further, all the
applicants hail from Maharashtra and Goa and have settled in
Delhi for the purpose of legal practice. A reference has been
invited to the Resolution passed by the BCI wherein the BCI
has requested learned Secretary General of this Court to
5
consider providing sufficient space to enable the advocates
who are registered with different State Bar Councils and are
on the electoral lists of the respective State Bar Councils to
cast their votes at New Delhi itself. However, no response has
been received by the BCI so far.
10) Owing to the election schedule having already been
finalized, we do not find any ground to permit the applicants
or the advocates who are practicing at New Delhi to cast their
votes at New Delhi instead of their respective States.
IA No. 12811 of 2018
11) The present application has been filed by the Bar Council
of Rajasthan seeking rescheduling of the date of election from
28.03.2018 to 05.04.2018 on the ground that the Rajasthan
High Court has holidays from 24.03.2018 to 01.04.2018 and
all the members who are practicing in the High Court would
not be able to exercise their franchise owing to holidays in the
Court. We do not find any good ground to defer the date of
election on the pretext of holidays as it would not be proper for
us to reschedule the election which has already been fixed for
28.03.2018. The application is, therefore, rejected.
6
IA No. 14854 of 2018
12) By means of present application, the applicant, who is
enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi, seeks a
direction to the effect that his name be included in the
electoral list for the reason that he had submitted all the
requisite documents within time. However, we find that the
applicant had not provided the copies of the original
documents as a result of which his name was not included in
the electoral roll.
13) We have given our thoughtful consideration to the plea
raised by the applicant. In our view, no ground has been
made out for directing the Bar Council of Delhi to include the
name of the applicant in the electoral roll. The application is
rejected accordingly.
IA No. 13749 of 2018
14) By means of this application, the applicant, who is
practicing as an advocate and is enrolled with the Bar Council
of Andhra Pradesh seeks a direction to conduct elections and
direct the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council and Telangana State
7
Bar Council to conduct election as per the scheduled declared
by this Court.
15) In the application for directions filed on behalf of the Bar
Council of India dated 23.01.2018, we find that the election
schedule for the State of Andhra Pradesh has been fixed by
the BCI, however, there is no mention of the election schedule
for the State of Telangana. It appears that the Bar Council of
Telangana has not yet come into existence and therefore, the
election in the State Bar Council of Telangana has not been
fixed.
16) In view of the above, in the present facts and
circumstances, we do not find any reason to direct the BCI to
hold election for the State Bar Council of Telangana. The
application is rejected.
...…………….………………………J.
(R.K. AGRAWAL)
.…....…………………………………J.
(ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 5, 2018.
