Supreme Court of India
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORSversusB.D. KAUSHIK
- Citation
- 2012 INSC 203
- Decided
- 7 May 2012
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ALTAMAS KABIR
Holding
The resolutions adopted on 16 January 2012 and 18 January 2012 are invalid, set aside, and the Implementation Committee must continue to identify eligible voters as directed by the Supreme Court.
Summary
The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had been directed by the Supreme Court in 2011 to identify regular practitioners for voting rights under the "One Bar One Vote" principle. While the Implementation Committee was carrying out this task, the SCBA held a General Body Meeting on 16 January 2012 that passed resolutions repudiating the Court's directions, expelling the Committee members and allowing all members to vote. The Court held that these resolutions were ultra vires, violated the earlier judgment and the SCBA's own rules, and therefore were void. It affirmed that the Supreme Court's directions under Article 142 remain enforceable even after the original appeals were disposed, and that the Implementation Committee must continue its work to finalize the voters' list. The Court set aside the resolutions, restored the pre‑meeting office‑bearers, and ordered a timetable for publishing the eligible voters list and conducting elections. The interlocutory applications seeking to enforce the judgment were allowed.
Issues considered
- The validity of the resolutions passed at the SCBA General Body Meeting on 16 January 2012 and the Executive Committee meeting on 18 January 2012, which contravened the Supreme Court's 26 September 2011 judgment.
- Whether the Supreme Court can entertain interlocutory applications to enforce its earlier directions under Article 142 after the principal appeals have been decided.
- Whether the members of the SCBA are bound to obey the Supreme Court's directions and the consequences of non‑compliance.
- The legality of expelling the three senior members of the Implementation Committee and of declaring all SCBA members eligible to vote.
- Whether the General Body Meeting complied with the SCBA Rules and Regulations regarding notice, agenda and procedural requirements.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Sec.151
- Companies Act, 1956s. Sec.173(2)
- Constitution of Indias. Art.129, s. Art.141, s. Art.142
- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
- Societies Registration Act, 1860
- Supreme Court Rules, 1966s. Order 13 Rule 3, s. Order 40, s. Order 47
Subjects
Supreme Court Bar AssociationOne Bar One VoteImplementation CommitteeElection eligibilityArticle 142Contempt of CourtSCBA RulesRegular practitioner identificationValidity of resolutionsJudicial directions
Judgment
[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.) B
MAY 7, 2012
[ALTAMAS KABIR & SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.]
Bar Associations: 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.
Constitution of India, 1950:
D
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.
The requisition dated 10.1.2003, was placed for
0
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 F
Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Escorts Ltd. & Ors. 1985
=
(3) Suppl. SCR 909 (1986) 1 sec 264 - cited.
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
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
H
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] (270-8-
E]
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]
E
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,
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) [273-
B-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
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 4 S.C.R.
A 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
B
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
c
1998 (2) SCR 795 referred to para 33
1998 (2) SCR 795 relied on para 49
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
D I.A. 1 & 3.
IN
Civil Appeal No. 3401 of 2003.
AND
I.A. No. 4
E 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.
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,
F
(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, :-
(i) Resident Members;
D
(ii) Non-Resident Members;
(iii) Associate Members; and
(iv) Non-Active Members.
E
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 F
that the elections had been declared. Moreover, in the meeting
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
Balchandra Joshi's case (supra), should be adopted by the
0
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 :-
"RESOLUTION
B 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
c 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
D 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':
E (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
F 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.
G
(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.
H
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/- c
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 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
Supreme Court dated 26.9.2011 passed in the
B
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
K.K. Venugopal, Sr. Advocate, and (iii) Shri Ranjit
E
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
F 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
G announced his resignation from his post with
immediate effect. His resignation is forthwith
accepted by the General Body.
The Meeting ended with thanks to the Chair.
H
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 257
B.D. KAUSHIK [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
Resolution signed by more than 400 SCBA Members A
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 18th January, 2012, chaired by Mr. Pramod Swarup, B
Senior Executive Member, who had purportedly chaired the
General Body Meeting held on 16th January, 2012. Mr. Desai
pointed out from the minutes that the same resolution which had
been adopted at the General Body Meeting of 16th January,
2012, was also adopted at the purported meeting of the C
Executive Committee held on 18th January, 2012.
20. On the resolutions said to have been adopted both at
the Special General Body Meeting and the meeting of the
Executive Committee of the SCBA allegedly held thereafter, Mr.
Desai submitted that the said resolutions are per se in D
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, E
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. F
Desai submitted that the statement made by Mr. Ram
Jethmalani in Court had not been contradicted by anyone.
21. Mr. Desai also submitted that the Special General Body
Meeting of the SCBA had been convened on 16th January,
2012, only for the purpose of considering the implication of the G
judgment dated 26th 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:
H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R.
A (a) that the validity of the aforesaid judgment should not
be given effect to;
(b) that the Implementation Committee should be
dissolved;
B (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;
c
(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
(e) that anybody's resignation should be accepted.
D
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
E 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
F 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. Escorls Ltd. & Ors. [(1986) 1 SCC
G 264].
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
H
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 259
B.D. KAUSHIK [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
26th September, 2011, and that all active members of SCBA A
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 B
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 17th January, 2012, c
the majority of 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 18th January, 2012. The
meeting of the Executive Committee on 18th January, 2012, D
was, therefore, wholly unauthorized and all the members of the
Executive Committee were so informed by way of SMS and
E-mails dated 18th January, 2012. Mr. Desai submitted that the
Minutes of the meeting held on 18th January, 2012, were
unanimously recalled by the Executive Committee on 19th
January, 2012, in their entirety. It was also pointed out that out E
of the 21 members, 18 members were present in that meeting
of the Executive Committee held on 19th January, 2012.
24. Mr. Desai further submitted that Rule 35 of the SCBA
Rules and Regulations provided for the removal of a member F
from the SCBA on receipt of a written 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 G
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.
H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R.
A 25. Mr. Desai submitted that certain subsequent
developments are also required to be taken note of and, in
particular, a requisition notice dated 23rd March, 2012, signed
by 2/3rd of the Members of the SCBA, many of whom were
signatories to the General Body Meeting resolution dated 16th
B January, 2012, requiring the Executive Committee to initiate the
process of election and to publish the list of voters on or before
17th April, 2012, failing which the Members would call a
General Body Meeting and pass a resolution of "No
Confidence" against the Executive Committee. Mr. Desai
C submitted that the requisition was considered by the Executive
Committee of the SCBA and in its meeting of 11th April, 2012,
it was resolved that since the matter had been heard by this
Court and judgment had been reserved on 4th April, 2012, the
requisition notice dated 23rd March, 2012, should be placed
D before this Court with an application seeking proper directions.
26. Mr. Desai submitted that yet another requisition notice
dated 18th April, 2012, was received on 20th April, 2012,
purported to have been signed by 252 advocates, calling upon
the members of the Executive Committee to convene a General
E Body Meeting on 25th April, 2012, failing which the
requisitionists would hold a General Body Meeting on that day
and pass a resolution of 'No Confidence' and also fix the date
of holding of the elections of the SCBA in the month of May,
2012.
F
27. Mr. Desai submitted that the manner in which the
Special General Meeting was held on 16th January, 2012, was
highly contumacious and, therefore, void, and was liable to be
declared as such. Furthermore, the subsequent notices
G 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 26th 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.
H
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v 261
B.D. KAUSHIK [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
28. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Advocate, who A
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 that the directions issued under Article 142
of the Constitution are binding upon all, unless they are recalled B
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 c
judgment dated 26th 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
0
of the Association on 16th 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.
29. Mr. Salve submitted that the Respondents had E
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 F
not part of the agenda for the meeting held on 16th January,
2012. Mr. Salve submitted that the minutes of the meetings held
on 16th and 18th January, 2012, lacked credence and
acceptability on account of the circumstances in which they
were adopted. G
30. On the question of whether the Implementation
Committee acted contrary to the judgment dated 26th
September, 2011, Mr. Salve submitted that the Implementation
Committee acted in keeping with the guidelines in Viney
H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R.
A Balchandra Joshi's case (supra) as was directed by this Court
and the object of the directions given in the judgment dated 26th
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
B 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
C purported Resolutions were adopted in the meetings said to
have been held on 16th and 18th 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'
D List, as per the directions given in the judgment dated 26th
September, 2012, on a war 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.
E
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
F of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, or under Order 13 Rule 3
thereof. Furthermore, since the judgment dated 26th
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
G Resolution Nos.1 and 4, which, according to him, had been
adopted at the Special General Body Meeting of the SCBA
held on 16th January, 2012, could not be supported and he
was not, therefore, pressing the same.
33. Mr. Dwivedi urged that once the judgment had been
H delivered, the Court became functus officio and any further
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 263
B.D. KAUSHIK [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
proceeding in relation to the disposed of matter could be only A
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 26th September, 2011, had
attained finality and could not be modified or altered in any B
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 C
specific provisions in law in that 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 D
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 E
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. F
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 G
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
H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 4 S.C.R.
A 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
B 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 the Governing
Body of the SCBA on 16th January, 2012 and, if at all any
clarification was required, the members of the Implementation
C 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
D Implementation Committee which needed to be rectified. It was
submitted that what had transpired at the meeting of the
General Body of SCBA on 16th 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
E 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
voluntarily, the subsequent meeting of the Executive Committee
F 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
G judgment passed by this Court on 26th 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.
H
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 265
B.D. KAUSHIK [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
38. Apart from the above, the names of various Advocates A
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 to show that the B
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 c
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 D
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, some of the present E
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 16th January, 2012 and the F
subsequent meeting of the Executive Committee held on 18th
January, 2012, had been legally adopted and could not be
interfered with, especially in a Petition which was not
maintainable.
G
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.
H
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R.
A · 41. Apart from Dr. Dhawan, among others who addressed
the Court, were Mr. Ashok Arora, learned 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
B 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,
C 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
D Supreme Court to form an Association had been curtailed or
that the provisions of the Societies Registration Act were being
violated by the 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
E the judgment dated 26th 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.
F
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
G 18th Februa.ry, 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. Sunita B. Rao as Coordinator of the
Implementation Committee. When the two appeals were taken
H up for hearing, one of the major issues which was canvassed
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 267
B.D. KAUSHIK [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
was that in connection with the holding of elections to the A
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 B
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 C
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 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
0
for a period of three years. The requisition dated 10th January,
2003, was placed for consideration at a Special General Body
meeting of the SCBA on 18th 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 E
Executive Committee convened on 3rd 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
25th April, 2003. Despite an attempt by some of the members F
to stall the proceedings, in the meeting of 10th March, 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 18th February,
2003. G
44. As indicated hereinbefore, the challenge to the
Resolution dated 18th February, 2003, in the two suits filed by
Mr. B.K. Kaushik and Mr. A.K. Manchanda resulted in the
H
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R.
A 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
8 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
C open to the Office Bearers of the SCBA 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
D 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
E 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
F the directions contained 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 16th 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
G 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 26th September, 2011, he could
have taken recourse to other lawful means available to him
under the law. The Resolutions adopted at the General Body
H
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 269
B.D. KAUSHIK [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
Meeting on 16th January, 2012, and, thereafter, on 18th A
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 B
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 to vote in the elections. Although, c
Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi did concede that the second and fourth
Resolutions adopted at the meeting of 16th 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
16th January, 2012, cannot be supported. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, 0
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 16th 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 E
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 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. F
47. We cannot help but notice that although the General
Body Meeting had been convened to consider the implications
of the judgment dated 26th September, 2011, what transpired
later is a complete departure therefrom. The members of the G
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 H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R.
A 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 SCBA, and were again::it the normal rules
of decorum and cannot be supported, despite attempts made
B 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 26th September, 2011, were treated, speaks
volumes of the manner in which the Hon'ble Members of the
c 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
0
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 26th September, 2011. If the members were
aggrieved by the questionnaire which was promulgated, nothing
prevented them from approaching this Court and asking for
E 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 16th January, 2012,
and the Resolutions adopted therein, some of which the
members themselves were unwilling to support, as well as the
F same resolutions purportedly adopted by the Executive
Committee of the SCBA on 18th 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
G 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.
H
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 271
B.D. KAUSHIK [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
49. We are unable to accept the said submission made A·
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 B
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 c
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 409], C
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 E
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 F
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 process of litigation and to do complete justice G
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 H
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 4 S.C.R.
A 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.
B 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, until and unless the
same are modified or recalled. In the said background, each
C of the Resolutions said to have been adopted at the purported
meeting of the General Body of the SCBA on 16th 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
D 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 26th 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
E 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 thereof and the
F 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 16th
January, 2012, notwithstanding the technical arguments
G 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
H grievance against the judgment delivered on 26th September,
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 273
B.D. KAUSHIK [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
2011, they have to obey the same in the scheme of judicial A
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 General Body Meeting of the SCBA B
held on 16th 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 16th
January, 2012, stand restored. The alleged resolution expelling C
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 26th D
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 E
or 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 F
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 G
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 H
274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 4 S.C.R.
A SCBA 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.
B 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
C 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
D 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 general
information of all of its members. All connected !As are also
disposed of by this order.
E
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.
F R.P. Matters disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Supreme Court Bar Association"Sign in to search