Created byFuzzy Cloud

Supreme Court of India

SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS.versusB.D. KAUSHIK

Citation
2012 INSC 336
Decided
16 August 2012
Disposal
Case Partly allowed

Holding

Paragraph 14 of the 20 July 2012 judgment is modified to include the SCAORA, extending the voting and attendance restriction to its members.

Summary

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and the Supreme Court Advocate‑on‑Record Association (SCAORA) filed IA No.6 seeking clarification of a judgment dated 20 July 2012 that applied the "ONE BAR ONE VOTE" principle to bar‑association elections. The earlier judgment excluded from voting in SCBA elections any person who had contested or voted in the executive‑committee elections of any court‑annexed Bar Association other than the SCBA during 2007‑2012, but inadvertently omitted the SCAORA from this exclusion. The court examined whether this omission should be corrected. It held that the paragraph should be modified to expressly include the SCAORA in the restriction, thereby extending the voting‑and‑attendance ban to its members as well. The court declined to alter the provision concerning the number of filings per year, finding the existing mechanism adequate. The IA was partly allowed: the modification was ordered, while the other prayer was left unchanged.

Issues considered

  • Whether the omission of the Supreme Court Advocate‑on‑Record Association from the restriction on voting in SCBA elections under the "ONE BAR ONE VOTE" principle should be corrected.
  • Whether the provision regarding the number of filings per year requires modification.

Subjects

One Bar One VoteBar Association electionsEligibility of membersSupreme Court Bar AssociationAdvocate‑on‑Record AssociationModification of judgmentImplementation CommitteeVoting rights

Judgment

                        [2012] 7 S.C.R. 287


       SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS.                              A
                                   v.
                          B.D. KAUSHIK
                             I.A. No.6
                                  IN
              (Civil Appeal Nos. 3401 of 2003 etc.)                      B

                         AUGUST 16, 2012

     [ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]

      BAR ASSOC/A TION:                                                  c
     Supreme Court Bar Association - Eligibility of Members
to contest and vote at the election to Executive Committee -
"ONE BAR ONE VOTE" principle - Applicability of - Order of
Supreme Court dated 20. 7.2012 1 - Modified to the effect that D
the person who had contested elections or had cast his vote
in an election to the Executive Committee of any court
annexed Bar Association other than Supreme Court Bar
Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-on-
Record Association (SCA ORA) during any of the years 2007
to 2012 could not be allowed to vote to elect the office bearers E
of the SCBA or to attend the General Body meeting of the
SCBA.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 6.
                                        IN                               F
      Civil Appeal No. 3401 & 3402 of 2003.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 05.04.2003 of the Civil
Judge, Delhi in Civil Suit Nos. 100 & 101 of 2003.
                                                                         G
   Ranjit Kumar, Dinesh Dwivedi, Sushil K. Jain, Atulesh
Kumar, Chanda 8. Prasad, Arun Kumar, Narendra Kumar,
1.   Supreme Court Bar Association and Ors. vs. B.D. Kaushik 2012 SCR.

                                  287                                    H
    288       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A Ranjit l<r. Sharma, Milind Kumar, Tripurari Ray, Ravi Shankar
    Kumar, B.K. Choudhary, Yuga! Kishore Prasad, Rajesh Ranjan
    Rajesh , Parmanand Pandey, Rajesh Aggarwal, Shivaji M.
    Jadhav, Jitender Mohan Sharma, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Nitin
  . Kumar Thakur, [Caveator-in-person] for the appearing parties.
B
          The Order of the Court was delivered

                                ORDER

       1. l.A.No.6 has been filed on behalf of the Supreme Court
c Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record
  Association, through its Secretary, Mrs. B.Sunita Rao,
  advocate, for clarification and modification of the judgment/
  order dated 20th July, 2012, wherein, while considering the
  application filed by the SCBA(l.A. No.5 of 2011), certain
0 suggestions made by the Implementation Committee had been
  accepted.

         2. Appearing in support of the said application, copies of
    which have been served on all the interested parties, including
    the members of the Implementation Committee, represented
E   by Mr. P.P. Rao and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior
    advocates, Mr. Sushi! Kumar Jain, learned advocate submitted
    that one omission appears to have been made in paragraph
    14 of the judgment, wherein while considering the principle of
    ONE BAR ONE VOTE, we had indicated that persons who had
F   contested elections to the Executive Committee of any Court
    annexed Bar Association, other than the SCBA, during any of
    the years from 2007 to 2012, could not be allowed to vote to
    elect the Office Bearers of the SCBA on the aforesaid principle,
    or to attend the General Body meetings of the SCBA. It was
G   further mentioned that the same would also include a person
    who had cast his vote in any election to the Executive
    Committee of any Court annexed Bar Association, other than
    the SCBA, for the above-mentioned years. It has been pointed
    out by Mr. Jain that through inadvertence, the Supreme Court
H   Advocate-on-Record Association had not been excluded,
  SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.                     289
              B.D. KAUSHIK
although, it formed an integral part of the SCBA.                    A

     3. The suggestion is well taken and accepted by all the
interested parties represented by learned counsel, and,
accordingly, we modify paragraph 14 of the said judgment
dated 20th July, 2012, by including the words "AND THE
                                                                     8
SCAORA" after the words "OTHER THAN THE SCBA"
appearing at lines 3 and 4 of the paragraph and also after the
same words appearing in line 11 of the said paragraph. Let
the said paragraph be modified and read accordingly.

     4. As far as the other prayer made on behalf of the             C
applicant is concerned, with regard to the number of filings in
a year, as indicated in paragraph 9 of the judgment, we are
convinced that since all advocates and members of the SCBA
will be covered by the number of entries into the Supreme
Court High Security Zone by the Proximity Card, the same             o
does not require any modification at this stage.

     5. l.A.6 filed in the disposed of appeal(s) is allowed to the
aforesaid extent.

R.P.                                          I.A. Partly allowed.   E


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "One Bar One Vote"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.