SUDHAversusPRESIDENT, ADV.ASSN.CHENNAI & ORS

               [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 289


                           SUDHA                                  A
                              v.
        PRESIDENT, ADV.ASSN.CHENNAI & ORS
            (Civil Appeal No . 10267 of 2010)
                      OCTOBER 22, 2010
                                                                  B
    [J.M. PANCHAL AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.]
                  .
    CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950:

     Article 136 - Appeal against order of High Court             c
approving draft bye-laws of the Society of Madras High Court
Advocates' Association during pendency of suits for removal
of the President and the Secretary of the Association -
Supreme Court on consensus of parties directed a General
Body Meeting to be convened for approving amendment to            D
the bye-laws - Held: Supreme Court in exercise of its power
under Article 136 would not be justified in interfering with
internal matter of a Bar Association - However, on consensus
of parties directions were given to convene General Body
meeting of the members of Association to consider proposed        E
amendments in the bye-laws - The resolution passed in the
meeting amending the bye-laws is perfectly legal and is
upheld.

    Bar Association:
                                                                  F
     Membership - Renewal - Right to vote and right to
contest election - Madras High Court Advocates' Association
- Bye-laws - Prescribing minimum years of practice and entry
fee etc: - HELD: Minimum years of practice to be entitled to
vote and to contest election of the Association, the provisions   G
prescribing entry fee, yearly subscription, payment for revival
of membership and deposits for contesting elections cannot
be regarded as illegal or arbitrary.

    BAR AssociATION - Election - Held: Legal profession is a
                            289                                   H
    290   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20101 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A solemn and serious occupation - A lawyer has to conduct
  himself as a model for others both in his professional life and
  his private /public life as a/so while exercising vote in an
  election of office bearers of the Association - Advocates -
  Legal ethics.
B
       Societies:

      General Body Meeting of Madras High Court Advocates
  Association - Resolution put to vote by show of hands - Held:
  The device adopted by Teller Committee cannot be said to
C be arbitrary - Advocates.
       Suits were filed in 2005 before the High Court for
  removal of the President and the Secretary of the Madras
  High Court Advocates' Association, for rendition of
o accounts and to restrain the said office bearers from
  taking any action pursuant to the declaration of the
  election programme. The Secretary of the Association
  also filed a civil suit seeking to restrain the defendants
  named therein from interfering with his functioning as
E Secretary during his tenure which was to last till April
  2006. As the suits remained pending, pursuant to the
  applications filed in the suits, elections for the office
  bearers of the Association were held under the directions
  of the High Court. The High Court also constituted three
  committees: (I) to prepare list of members of the
F Association eligible to vote; (ii) to frame/amend bye-laws
  of the Association and (iii) to conduct the election.
  Ultimately, the High Court, by its judgment dated 6.4.2010
  approved the draft bye-laws qf/ the Society.
G     The appellant, filed the instant appeal by way of
  special leave with a petition seeking permission to file the
  special leave petition, as she was not a party before the
  High Court. During the course of hearing of the appeal
  on 03.08.2010, on consensus of the parties, the Supreme
H Court ordered that the proposed amendment of the bye-
SUDHA v. PRESIDENT, ADV.ASSN.CHENNAI & ORS. 291


laws be approved in the extra-ordinary meeting of the A
General Body to be held on 7.9.2010. The meeting was
duly held under the supervision of the Teller Committee
on the notified date and the resolution adopting the new
bye-laws was passed by a majority of more than 90% of
the members present by raising hands.                    B
     It was contended for the appellant that the High Court
had no jurisdiction to interfere with the internal mattes of
the Association and, therefore, the directions given and/
or the approval granted to amend the bye-laws should be
set aside; that the resolution passed on 7.9.2010 should C
be set aside/modified, as proper audience was not given
to members of the Association and the resolution passed
by show of hands, instead of a secret ballot, was illegal;
that clause 12 of the amended bye-laws prescribing
minimum period of three years to become eligible to D
contest election and two years to become eligible to cast
vote was illegal; that clause 10 of the amended bye-laws
prescribing a very high amount of Rs.2,000/- as entry fee,
Rs.1 000/- as yearly subscription for junior members of the
bar and an Exorbitant sum of Rs.S.OOO/- for revival of E
membership was illogical and deserved to be set aside;
and that clause 17 of the amended bye-laws prescribing
exorbitant and unjust deposits to be made for contesting
the elections should be reasonably reduced. It was
submitted that these amendments were against the junior F
members of the Association.
    Dismissing the appeal, the Court
    HELD:
     1. This Court while exercising powers under Article G
136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 would hardly be
justified in interfering with internal matters of a Bar
Association, as members of the Association are
Advocates who understand as to what is in their interests.
Therefore, to expect this Court to go on giving directions H
    292   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   to convene meetings is neither practical nor expected of      1

    this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136.
    However, the order dated 03.08.2010 was passed on
    consensus of the Advocates who were present in the
    Court-room including the counsel for the appellant.
8   Further, though it was not necessary for this Court to
    examine the validity of the amendments carried out in the
    bye-laws as per the resolution passed in the General
    Body Meeting held on 7.9.2010, but this Court has done
    so only because of the insistence of the appellant to
C   maintain transparency and because the Teller Committee
    had undertaken the huge task pursuant to the consent
    order dated 3.8.2010. [para 16 and 19] [308-B-0; 311-C·
    0]
      2 .1. From the Report-cum-Minutes of the
0 Extraordinary General Body Meeting of the Association
  held on 7.9.2010, it is evident that the order passed by this
  Court on August 3, 2010 was taken into consideration.
  Notice had been given to the Members of the Association
  stating that Meeting of the General Body was to be
E convened to consider the question of approving the
  proposed amendments to the bye-laws. The report of the
  Teller Committee indicates that the meeting was
  supervised by its members. Due publicity was given to
  the meeting. A copy of the notice of the Meeting along
F with copies of old bye-laws, proposed amendments in the
  bye-laws, orders of the Supreme Court, orders of the
  Division Bench of the High Court etc. were widely
  circulated amongst the members of the Association
  through cause list distributors. Therefore, it cannot be
G said that proper meeting was not convened. [para 14]
  [305-F; 306-A-C-E]
         2.2. The report indicates that the issue as regards
    conducting a secret ballot was put to the General Body
    for their opinion and majority of the members present
H   desired that the resolution should be put to vote by
SUDHA v. PRESIDENT, ADV.ASSN.CHENNAI & ORS. 293


show of hands. In the circumstances, the appellant          A
cannot say that the meeting should not have been
conducted in the manner it was conducted and that
secret ballot should have been permitted. [para 14] [306-
F-H; 307-A]
     2.3 . It is incorrect ·to say that members of the 8
Association were not permitted to speak at the meeting.
The report of the Teller Committee indicates that before
holding the meeting, those who were desirous of
addressing the gathering were asked to put their names
in the list; that 30 Advocates had shown their willingness C
and they in fact addressed the gatherin.g; that the meeting
was convened at 1.30 P.M. and the discussion continued
upto 3.30 p.m. and thereafter the proposed amendment
was put to 'tote which was approved by show of hands
by the Members present; that more than 90% of the D
members of the Association who were present gave their
assent by saying 'Yes'. The device adopted by the Teller
Committee cannot be said to be arbitrary at all. [para 15]
[307 -B-E-F]
                                                            E
     2.4. The legal profession is a solemn and serious
occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong
to it are its honourable members, the honour of the
profession has to be maintained by its members by their
exemplary conduct both in and outside the court. The
legal profession is different from other professions in that F
what the lawyers do, affects not only an individual but the
administration of justice which is the foundation of the
civilized society. Both as a leading member of the
intelligentsia of the society and as an intelligent citizen,
a lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others G
both in his professional and in his private and public life
as also while exercising vote in an election of office
bearers of the Association, so that the election takes
place peacefully and in an organized manner. [para 17J
[308-E-H; 309-A]                                             H
    294   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A      3.1 . In the instant case, the amendments carried out
  in the bye-laws of the Association can hardly be regarded
  as against the legal fraternity in general or junior
  members of the Bar, in particular. Clause 12 of the
  amended bye-laws prescribing that a member of the
B Association having practice of l~ss than two years would
  not be entitled to vote or that a member of the Assoc:ation
  who has not put in three years of practice would not be
  entitled to contest the election is reasonable and is meant
  for enhancing the status and image of members of the
c Bar. These restrictions have been brought to uphold the
  dignity of courts and majesty of law and to ensure that
  there is no unprofessional and/or unbecoming conduct.
  Clause 10 of the amended bye-laws prescribes Rs. 2,000/
  - as entry fee and yearly subscription of Rs.1,000/- as well
  as Rs.2,000/-. Keeping in..view several expenditures being
0
  incurred by the Association on behalf of its members,
  these amounts can hardly be regarded as exorbitant. It
  is also noticed irt several Bar Associations that certain
  Members without making payment of entry· fee or yearly
  subscription or renewal of their membership enjoy the
E facilities provided by the kssociation. Therefore, the
  stipulation that i~ case of non-renewal of membership, a
  member will have to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for reviving
  his membership cannot be regarded as arbitrary. Again,
  clause 17 which prescribes deposit of a certain amount
F for contesting the elections cannot be regarded as illegal
  or arbitrary. If no amount is required to be deposited for
  contesting the elections the same is likely to result into
  chaos and undeserving elements would take advantage
  of the situation. [para. 17-18] [309-E-H]                ·
G
       3.2. The resolution passed on 07.09.2010 is perfectly
  l~gal and, therefore, the same is hereby upheld. [para 19]
  [310-F; 311-A-E] .
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
H   10'2.67 of2010.
SUDHA v. PRESIDENT, ADV.ASSN.CHENNAI & ORS. 295


      From the Judgment & Order dated 16.4.2010 of the High         A
Court of Judicature Madras in Application No. 2739 of 2009
in C .S. No. 301 of 2005.

     G. Sivabalamurugan, Anis Mohammad, L.K. Pandey for
the Appellant.
                                                                    8
    R . Balasubramaniom, G . Mohan Krishnan, B.
Karunakaran, S. Gowthaman, Neeraj Shekhar, lbrar Mohamed
Abdullah, R. Chandrachud, R. Anand Padmanaban, Prithviraj
B.N., Aristotal Flato, A. Riaz, Shashi Shushan Kumar, Jayanth
Muth Raj , R.C. Paul Kanagaraj, Velmurugan, C.K. Sasi, Nishe        C
Rajan Shanker for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    J.M. PANCHAL. 1. Leave Granted
                                                                    0
     2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment
dated April 16, 2010 rendered by the Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras in Application No. 2739 of
2009 filed in Civil Suit No.301 of 2005 and Civil Suit No. 336
of 2005 by which the High Court has issued various directions       E
regarding the management of the . Madras High Court
Advocates' Association ('The Association', for short) and had
approved the amended bye-laws of the Association.

    3. In order to understand the controversy raised in the         F
appeal, it would be necessary to notice certain facts emerging
from the record of the case.

    In the year 1879, the Association was established. On
March 16, 1972 the Association was incorporated as a Society
and also as a charitable trust under the provisions of              G
Registration of Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act,
1860.
                                    '
    Two learned Advocates who are Members of the
Association have filed Civil Suit No.301 of 2005 seeking            H
    296   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A removal of the Trusteeship of defendant Nos. 1 and 3 who are
  the President and Secretary respectively of the Association and
  to direct them to submit report of accounts. They have also
  prayed to frame a permanent scheme for the election and
  management of the Trust. Pending the said suit, four other
B learned Advocates of the Association have filed Civil Suit
  No.336 of 2005 to declare that the action of the defendant No.4
  of the said suit i.e. Secretary of the Association in notifying
  programme for election of the office bearers of the Association
  and the resolution dated March 24, 2005 of the General Body
c of the Association appointing the defendant Nos. 17 to 22 of
  the said suit, as members of the Election Committee to conduct
  the election are bad in law and to restrain the defendant Nos.
  1 to 16 as well as 17 to 22 from taking any action pursuant to
  the declaration of the election programme.        ·
0        The Secretary of the Association has filed Civil Suit No.
    337 of 2005 to restrain the defendants named therein from
    interfering with his functioning as Secretary till expiration of his
    tenure i.e. till April, 2006.                      ·

E      4. It may be stated that the above numbered suits have
  been instituted in the High Court on its original jurisdiction and
  are pending disposal. The record indicates that in view of the
  pendency of above numbered suits every year the learned
  Advocates used to file different applications in the suits seeking
F direction of the High Court for holding elections of the office
  bearers of the Association and appropriate directions were
  given by the High Court from time to time . One learned
  advocate Mr. Thiru R. Karuppan filed an application bearing
  No.3101 of 2007 in Civil Suit No.301 of 2005 seeking his
G impleadment in the suit and to restrain the members of the
  Election Committee from scrutinizing applications received from
  the members of the Association for contesting election of office
  bearers of the Association and from conducting the election. It
  was also prayed therein to appoint tellers committee to conduct

H
SUDHA v. PRESIDENT, ADV.ASSN.CHENNAI & ORS. 297
              [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]

elections of the association. The learned Single Judge of the      A
Madras High Court, by an order dated April 17, 2007,
appointed a Tellers Committee consisting of 1) Thiru R.
Thyagarajan, Senior Advocate, 2) Thiru N.G .R. Prasad,
Advocate 3) Thiru C. Selvaraju, Senior Advocate 4) Thiru K.M .
Ramesh, Advocate and 5) Thiru .A.shok Menon, Advocate to           B
complete the entire election process for the year 2007. Again
for the year 2008-09, the High Court was approached by the
learned Advocates and a learned Single Judge of the High
Court passed the following order on March 17, 2008 :-

    "It is represented by Mr. G. Rajagopal, Senior Counsel that C
    the Committee was appointed by the Office Bearers of the
    High Court Association to give recommendation for
    amending the bye-laws and that the said Committee is
    going to file a draft amendment in the bye-laws before the
    Association by 25.3.2008. The learned President of the D
    said Association would represent that thereafter they will
    convene a General Body Meeting for getting approval of
    the draft amendment of the bye-laws by the General Body.
    Dr. G. Krishnamurthy, the learned counsel for the plaintiff
    in C.S. No.301 of 2005 would represent that if the bye-laws E
    are amended nothing will survive in all the suits."

     The record further shows that thereafter on April 11, 2008
an order was passed by a learned Single Judge of the High
Court directing the elections to be conducted on April 29, 2008
                                                                   F
under the supervision of the Tellers Committee. Again for
conducting election of the Association for the year 2009-2010,
the High Court was approached by the learned members of the
Association . At the instance of the. learned Advocates
appearing for the parties, the matter was posted for hearing       G
before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division
Bench of the High Court heard the learned Counsel for the
parties and parties themselves, at length. After considering the
overall submissions made by the learned Counsel for the
parties, the Division Bench by order dated July 27, 2009
                                                                   H
    298    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010]14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   constituted three Committees, for different purposes, namely:

          (i)     to prepare the list of Members of the Association
                  who are eligible to vote in the election and who
                  have enrolled themselves as members as on
                  31 .3.2009 for the election for the year 2009-10.
B
          (ii)    to frame/amend bye-laws for the Association; and

          (iii)   to conduct the election.

         To verify the list of Members of the Association upto
C   31 .3.2009, the High Court appointed the following learned
    Advocates as member of the Committee :-

          (i)     Sri ·s.v. Jayaraman, Senior Advocate

o         (ii)    Sri T.R. Mani, Senior Advocate

          (iii)   Sri L. Chandra Kumar, Advocate

          (iv)    Any other Advocate/17\dvocates as decided by the
                  above named three members.
E
          (v)     Any officer/officers/staff as decided by the first three
                  members.

        To frame the bye-laws, the following learned Advocates
    were appointed as Members of the Committee :-
F
          (i)     Sri S.V. Jayaram, Senior Advocate
          (ii)    Sri Ashok Menon, Advocate
          (iii)   Mrs. Sudha Ramalingam, Advocate
G
          (iv)    Some other Advocate/Advocates as decided by
                  the above three members.

        To conduct the election, the following learned Advocates
H   were appointed as members of the Tellers Committee.
SUDHA v. PRESIDENT, ADV.ASSN.CHENNAI & ORS. 299
              [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
      (i)     Sri. G. Rajagopal, Senior Advocate                    A

      (ii)    Sri. L. Chandra Kumar, Advocate

      (iii)   Selvi P.T. Asha, Advocate

      (iv)    Any other Advocate/Advocates as decided by the        B
              above three members.

      By an order dated September 18, 2009 the Division.
Bench extended the time for scrutiny of the list of Members till
November 1, 2009. The Division Bench of the High Court, by          C
an order dated January 12, 2010, issued guidelines for
finalizing the list of eligible members, whose names were to be
approved by the High Court in the presence of parties
concerned including Sri S.V. Jayaraman, Senior Advocate and
Mr. T.R. Mani, Senior Advocate. Again by an order dated
February 5, 2010 time was extended upto February 22, 2010           D
for verification of the list of Members in view of request made
by Mr. T.R. Mani, learned Senior Advocate who was one of the
members of the Committee constituted for verification of the list
of members of the Association upto 31-03-2009. The Division
Bench by an order dated February 22, 2010 in the presence           E
of Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, Senior Advocate, Mr. T.R. Mani, Senior
Advocate, Mr. Elephant G. Rajendran, Mr. R. Karuppan , Mr. S.
Prabhakaran representing Mr. Abdul Rahman and Dr. G .
Krishnamurthy, directed the respective counsel of the parties,
to sit with the Committee constituted to frame bye-laws of the      F
Association and to finalise the draft bye-laws. By the said order
time was granted upto March 6, 2010 to the learned Advocates
to undertake the exercise of framing/ amending bye-laws.
Again by an order dated March 8 , 2010, the Court took on
record the copy of the draft bye-laws produced by Mr. S.V.          G
Jayaraman , Senior Advocate and noted the, necessary
amendments suggested therein by the respective learned
counsel for the parties. The Court also granted further time to
Mr. T.R. Mani, Senior Advocate, to finalise the list of eligible
members of the Association. The record shows that by an order       H
    300   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A dated March 15, 2010 the Division Bench of the Madras High
  Court directed the Committee constituted for verification of the
  list of members of the Association to circulate its report by
  March 22, 2010. So far as draft bye-laws recommended by the
  Committee constituted for the said purpose were concerned,
B they were noted and orders thereon were reserved.
         5. Meanwhile, a representation was given to the Hon'ble
    the Chief Justice of Madras High Court making allegations
    against the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench as
    if they had overstepped their jurisdiction in the matter of
C   amendment of the bye-laws of the Association. The Hon'ble the
    Chief Justice had forwarded the said representation · to the
    Hon'ble Judges constituting the Division Bench. The Division
    Bench hearing the matter had certain reservations about the
    representation said to have been made by a few Advocates
D   who had not raised any objection before the Court. The Division
    Bench therefore heard the matter again at length . All the
    respective learned Counsel expressed their regret for such
    representation which was sent to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice
    of High Court by a few handful of Advocates and they also
E   requested the Court to proceed with the matter and to pass
    order. The Division Bench insisted that the learned Advocates
    present should file affidavits to the said effect. The record
    shows that accordingly affidavits were filed. Thereafter, various
    suggestions were given relating to the amendment of the bye-
F   laws of the Association. The Division Bench was not inclined
    to consider those amendments except a few suggestions which
    were accepted by most of the members who were present in
    the Court. Thus, the High Court by judgment dated April 16,
    201 0 approved the draft bye-laws of the Society which has
G   given rise to the instant appeal.
       6. It may be mentioned that SLP (C) No. 16840 of 2010
  out of which the present appeal arises was placed for
  preliminary hearing before the Court on May 24, 2010 during
  summer vacation and after heasing the learned counsel for the
H appellant the Court had passed the following order:-
SUDHA v. PRESIDENT, ADV.ASSN.CHENNAI & ORS. 301
              [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
    "Permission to file special leave petition is granted. Issue   A
    notice, returnable in six weeks, dasti, in addition.

          In the meanwhile, further proceedings in Civil Suit
    Nos.301 and 336 of 2005 and operation of order dated
    16.4.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras
    High Court shall remain stayed."
                                                                   B

     It is also deserved to be stated that the present appellant
had filed application No.1473 of 2010 in Civil Suit No. 301 of
2005 with a prayer to implead her as one of the defendants.
As per the application made in the Special Leave Petition it       C
transpires that the Division Bench of the High Court did not
consider the same and therefore application was filed before
this Court seeking permission to file special leave petition.

     7. The special leave petition was thereafter listed before    D
the Court on July 26, 2010 and after hearing the learned
counsel for the parties and on their request, the matter was
adjourned to August 3, 201 0. Again on August 3, 2010 the
Court had heard the learned counsel for the parties at great
length and in view of consensus arrived at between the learned
counsels appearing in the matter following directions were         E
issued :-

    "1. The extraordinary meeting of the General Body of the
    Madras High Court Advocates' Association will be held at
    1.30 p.m. on 7.9.2010.                                         F

    2. The learned Secretary of the Bar Assocfation will give
    notice to the members of the Association stating that the
    extraordinary meeting of the General Body will be held at
    1.30p.m. on 7.9.2010.
                                                                   G
    3. The meeting of the General Body shall consider the
    question of approving the proposed amendment of the
    bye-laws.

    4. The extraordinary meeting of the General Body shall be      H
                                ~                     .
    302    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (AODL.) S.C.R.


A         supervised by the following learned advocates who are
          members of the Tellers Committee:-

           (i)     Sri G. Rajagopalan, Sr. Adv.

           (ii)    Sri L. Chandrakumar, Adv.
B
           (iii)   Selvi P.T. Asha, Adv.

          5. Unless and until, the amended bye-laws are approved
          at the extraordinary meeting of the General Body of the
          Madras High Court Advocates' Association, the same
c         shall not be implemented in any manner."

          8. Pursuant to the above mentioned directions given by the
     Court, an extraordinary meeting of the General Body of the
     Madras High Court Advocates' Association was held on
0 "- September 7, 2010. Further, in compliance of the above
     mentioned order of this Court the Honorary Secretary of the
     Association, under the supervision of the Teller Committee had
     issued a notice on 16.08.2010 informing the members of the
     Association that the Extraordinary General Body meeting of the
E Association would be held at 1.30 p.m. on 7.09.2010 and the
     copies of the notice were exhibited at conspicuous places in
     the High Court premises. The record shows that the said notice
     was also published in two newspapers that is one Hindu
     (English) dated 22.08.2010 and Dhinamalar (Tamil) dated
F 22.08.2010. The Teller Committee had further given instructions
     to widely circulate a copy of the notice of the Extraordinary
     meeting of the Association to be held on 7.9.2010 along with
     copy of old bye-laws, copy o{ proposed amendments in the
     bye-laws, orders of the Supreme Court, an order of the Division
     Bench, amongst Members of the Association through cause list
G distributors and also delivered the same to all the members in
     the chambers allotted to them. The record shows that the
     resolution as to whether the Members of the Association present
     were giving their assent for approving their new bye-laws or
     rejecting the new bye-laws was put to vote. The record would
H
     SUDHA v. PRESIDENT, ADV.ASSN.CHENNAI & ORS. 303
                   [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]

     further show that more than 90% of the members present              A
     accorded their assent approving the new bye-laws by raising
     of hands and saying 'Yes'. Therefore, the resolution adopting
     the new bye-laws was pa~sed.

          9 . The resolution passed by the Members of the
                                                                         8
     Association at the Extraordinary meeting of the General Body
     of Madras High Court Advocates' Association held on
     September 7, 2010 was sent to this Court by the learned
     Members of the Tellers Committee. When the matter was taken
     up for hearing on October 4, '201 0, the learned counsel for the
     appellant had stated at the Bar that he had received a copy of
                                                                         c
     the Resolution dated September 10, 2010 passed at the
     Extraordinary General Body Meeting of the Association held on
     September 7, 2010 and prayed to adjourn the matter by two
     weeks to enable him to file response/affidavit to the Resolution.
     The prayer was accepted and it was ordered accordingly.             0



-•
          10. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the appellant had
     filed objections to the report filed before this Court by the
     learned Members of the Tellers Committee alongwith the
     objection affidavits sworn by certain learned Advocates             E
     practicing in the Madras High Court. The learned counsel for
     the respondents had contended that question relating to the
     validity of the amended bye-laws should not be considered by
     this Court and that the appellant should be relegated to the
     alternative remedy available under the law. Thereupon, the          F
     learned counsel for the appellant had pointed out that the bye-
     laws had been amended pursuant to the orders passed by this
     Court on August 3, 2010 and, therefore, no other Court or forum
     would examine the question of validity of the amended bye-laws
     because of judicial discipline and propriety. On this submission
                                                                         G
     being made the Court had decided to examine the validity of
     the amendments made in the bye-laws.

          11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
     the Resolution passed on September 7, 2010 should be set
     aside and/or modified because proper audience was not given         H
    304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A to all Members of the Association who had attended the
  Extraordinary Meeting of the General Body of the Association.
  It was contended that most of the members had requested the
  Members of the Teller Committee to consider adoption and/or
  otherwise of the amendments made in the bye-laws by a secret
s ballot but the said reasonable request was arqitrarily tur:ned
  down by the Teller Committee and the Resolution was passed
  by show of hands which w~s illegal. It was argued that clause
  9 of the amended bye-laws refers to the voting rights of the
  resident, non-resident and associate members but before
c adopting the said clause no meticulous discussion had taken
  place which vitiates the Resolution. What was maintained
  before the Court was that the Clause 12 of the amended bye-
  laws relating to the eligibility to contest the election and cast
  vote which prescribes minimum period of three years to
  become eligible to contest election is unreasonable and liable
0
  to be set aside. It was pleaded that the Association
  Membership should not have been taken as a criterion for
  deciding eligibility to contest election and cast vote but the date
  of enrolment in the Bar Council ought to have been taken into
  consideration for determining eligibility to contest the election
E and or cast vote. The learned counsel further emphasized that
  Clau~e 10 of the amended bye-laws prescribes a very high
  amount of Rs. 2,000/- as entry fee and yearly subscription of
  Rs.1 ,000/- for Junior Members of the Bar. Whereas in case of
  renewal an exorbitant sum of Rs.S,OOO/- is unilaterally
F prescribed which is illogical and deserves to be set aside.
  According to the learned counsel for the appellant Clause 17
  of the amended bye-laws which prescribes deposit to be made
  for contesting the elections is exorbitant as well as unjust and,
  therefore, this Court should reduce the same reasonably. What
G was maintained before the Court was that the four amendments
  mentioned above in the bye-laws are against the interest of the
  learned Junior Members of the Association as well as entire
  legal fraternity. And, therefore, appropriate directions should be
  given to the Teller Committee to convene another Extraordinary
H General Body Meeting of the Association for considering the
SUDHA v. PRESIDENT, ADV.ASSN.CHENNAI & ORS. 305
              [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]
question whether the amendments in the bye-laws should be           A
adopted or not. It was also prayed on behalf of the learned
counsel for appellant that direction should be given to.consider
the question of adoption of those amendments by a secret
ballot.
                                                                    B
     12. All the other learned counsels appearing for the
respondents without exception have strongly opposed the
prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. It was
pointed out by them that pursuant to the direction given by this
Court an Extraordinary Meeting of the General Body of the
Association was held wherein the amendment made to the bye-         C
laws was carried out by majority of the Members who were
present. According to the learned counsel of the respondents
after passing of the order dated August 3, 2010 the instant
Special Leave Petition itself become infructuous and, therefore
the directions as sought for by the learned counsel for the         D
appellant to again convene an Extraordinary Meeting to the
General Body of the Association should not be accepted at all.

     13. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties
at great length and considered the documents forming part of        E
the instant petition.

     14. From the Report-cum-Minutes of the Extraordinary
General Body meeting of the Association held on September
7, 2010, it is evident that the order passed by this Court on
August 3 , 2010 was taken into consideration. Before the            F
Extraordinary General Body Meeting was held on September
7, 201 0 the learned Honorary Secretary of the Association had
given notice to the other learned Members of the Association
stating that the Extraordinary General Body Meeting of the
Association would be held on September 7, 2010. It was also         G
specified in the notice that the Meeting of the General Body is
convened to consider the question of approving the proposed
amendment made to the bye-laws. The report of the Teller
Committee indicates that the meeting was supervised by the
learned Advocates who were appointed as Members of the              H
    306    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010} 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A   Teller Committee. The notice issued by the Honorary Secretary
    of the Association was exhibited at conspicuous places at the
    High Court premises. The said notice was also published in
    two newspapers i.e. Hindu (English) dated 22.8.2010 and
    Dhinamalar (Tamil) dated 22.8.2010. The Minutes would further
B   indicate that on the instructions of the Teller Committee, a copy
    of the notice of the Extraordinary General Meeting of the
    Association along with the copy of old bye-laws, copy of
    amendments to be made in the bye-laws , orders of the
    Supreme Court, orders of the Division Bench of the High Court
C   etc. were widely circulated amongst the Members of the
    Association through cause list distributors. The notice with
    materials mentioned above was also delivered in the chambers
    of all the learned Advocates including the Members of the
    Association. The report indicates that the meeting Hall of the
    Association was too small to accommodate the large number
0   of members who were expected to attend the meeting and,
    therefore, with the permission of the Registry the meeting was
    arranged in the meeting Hall on the 5th floor of the Annexed
    chamber building of the High Court. As mentioned in the report
    of the Teller Committee, the arrangements were again
E   supervised by the Teller Committee. Therefore, in these
    circumstances, the grievance made by the learned counsel for
    the appellant that proper meeting was not convened has no
    substance. The report indicates that after the meeting was
    convened at about 1.30 p.m. the discussion had gone on till
F   3.30 p.m. Thereflfter, Mr. G. Rajagopalan had informed the
    members that he had received request from certain learned
    Members of the Association to conduct a secret ballot and as
    per the report of the Teller Committee this request was put to
    the General Body for their opinion. The report of the Teller
G   Committee without mincing words mentions that majority of the
    learned Members who were present in the meeting had
    desired that the resolution should be put to vote by show of
    hands immediately. Under the circumstances the grievance
    made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the meeting
H   should not have been conducted in the manner in which it was
SUDHA v. PRESIDENT, ADV.ASSN .CHENNAI & ORS. 307
              [J .M. PANCHAL, J.}
conducted and that secret ballot should have been permitted        A
cannot be entertained.
     15. Another grievance made by the learned counsel for the
appellant that Members of the Association were not permitted
to speak at the meeting to express their views for con~ideration
and, therefore, the Resolution should be set aside lacks factual 8
basis . So far as permission to speak at the meeting is
concerned the report of the Teller Committee indicates that
before holding meeting the learned Advocates who were
desirous of addressing the gathering were asked to put their
names in the list. As per the report of the Teller Committee 30 C
learned Advocates had shown their willingness and they were
permitted and had in fact addressed the gathering. As per the
Report, the discussion had continued upto 3.30 p.m. and
thereafter the proposed amendment was put to vote which was
approved by show of hands by the Members who were present D
at the meeting. As per the Report more than 90°k' of the learned
members of the Association who were present had given their
assent by saying 'Yes'. Thus, it is wrong to suggest that the
learned Members of the Association were not permitted to
speak at the meeting. The experience of one and all is such E
that in such meetings chaos takes place and nq>rmally the
learned Members of the Association shout at each other. In
order to avoid such an eventuality before holding the meeting
the names of those Advocates who were desirous of
addressing the meeting were enlisted. The device adopted by F
the learned Members of the Teller Committee cannot be said
to be arbitrary at all.
     16. The argument that the four clauses mentioned earlier
are against the interest of the legal fraternity in general and
against the interest of the learned Junior Members in particular   G
who were practicing in the High Court and, therefore, fresh
directions as prayed for should be given is difficult to accept.
The Teller Committee had already convened a meeting pursuant
to a consensus order passed by this Court. In the SLP the main
grievance made was that the High Court had no jurisdiction to      H
    308   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A interfere in the internal .matters of the Association and,
  therefore, the directions given and/or the approval granted to
  the amended bye-laws should be set aside. As stated earlier,
  order dated August 3, 2010 was passed on consensus of
  atleast 15 Advocates who were present in the Court room
B including the learned Advocate for the appellant. This Court
  while exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution
  would hardly be justified in interfering with internal matters of a
  Bar Association. The Association includes Members as
  learned Advocates who are practicing in the Court. It is not
C difficult for the learned Advocates of the Association who are
  practicing law day in and day out in the Court rooms to
  understand as to what is in their interest" and, therefore, this
  Court would hardly have any occasion to tender any advice to
  the )earned Advocates of the Association in the matters relating
  to the internal affairs of the Association. Therefore, to expect
0
  this Court to go on giving directions to convene meeting is
  neither practical nor expected of this Court while exercising
  powers under Article 136 of the Constitution.

         17. The legal profession is a solemn and serious
E occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it
   are its Hon'ble Members. Although, the entry to the profession
   can be had by acquiring merely the qualification prescribed by
   different universities, the honour as a professional has to be
   maintained by its Members by their exemplary conduct both in
F and outside the Court. The legal profession is different from
   other professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only
   an individual but the administration of justice which is the
   foundation of the civilized society. Both as a leading member
   of the intelligentsia of the society and as an intelligent citizen,
G the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others both in
   his professional and in his private and public life. The different
   Associations of the Members of the Bar are being formed to
   show the strength of lawyers in case of necessity. The lawyers
   while exercising vote in an election of office bearers of the
H. Association must conduct himself in an exemplary manner.
SUDHA v. PRESIDENT, ADV.ASSN.CHENNAI & ORS. 309
              [J.M. PANCHAL, J.]

Those who are concerned about high standard of the profession A
are supposed to take appropriate action to see that the election
takes place peacefully and in an organized manner. Many a
times it is noticed that those who are not lawyers get entry into
the Association room by putting on merely black coat as at the
time of election the feelings are running high. Such elements 8
take undue advantage of the situation and bring a bad name
to the Association of the Advocates. Therefore, to deter such
elements the amendments have been carried out in the bye-
laws. Those amendments carri~d out in the bye-laws of the
Association can hardly be regarded as against the legal         c
fraternity in general and as against Junior Members of the Bar
in particular. In every society or association some code of
conduct has to be laid down as to in which manner the voting
should be done and who would be competent to vote. The
Association of Advocates are expected to rise to the occasion o
as they; are responsible to uphold the dignity of Courts and
majesty of law and to prevent interference in administration of
justice. It is the duty of the Associations to ensure that there is
no unprofessional and/or unbecoming conduct by the
Advocates at the time of election of the office bearers of the E
Association. This being their duty it was necessary to amend
the bye-laws of the Association. The amendment prescribing
that a Member of the Association having practice of less than
two years would not be entitled to vote or that a member of the
Association who has not put in three years of practice, .would F
not be entitled to contest the election are reasonable and are
meant for enhancing status and image of members of the Bar.
These restrictions have been brought to uphold the dignity of
Courts and majeSiy of law and to ensure that there is no
unprofessional and/or unbecoming conduct. The other
 ame.ndments to which the learned counsel for the appellant has G
 taken exception also do not impose unreasonable restriction
on the members of the Association. Clause 12 of the amended
bye-laws refers to the eligibility criterion to cast vote and to
contest the election and the same has not been regarded as
unreasonable. Clause 10 of the amended bye-laws prescribes H
    310    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R.


A entry fee and yearly subscription for lhe Members of the Bar.
  The prescription of Rs. 2,000/- as entry fee and yearly
  subscription of Rs.1,000/- as well as Rs.2,000/- can hardly be
  regarded as exorbitant . One who is a member of the
  Association of Advocates can realize that several expenditures
B have to be incurred by the Association on beha:f of its
  Members. Further staff has to be employed to carry out day to
  day instructions and they have to be paid reasonable salary.
  Having regard to the circumstances prevailing as on today, the
  prescription of entry fee or yearly subscription can hardly be
c regarded as exorbitant. It is also noticed in several Bar
  Associations that certain Members without making payment of
  entry fee or yearly subscription enjoy the facilities provided by
  the Association. In some cases it is found that some advocates
  become Member of the Association by makillg payment of
0 yearly subscription initially but thereafter do not renew their
  membership and go on enjoying all the facilities provided by
  the Association. Under the circumstances, the stipulation that
  in case of non-renewal of membership, a member will have to
  pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for reviving his membership can hardly
E be regarded as arbitrary.

       18. Again clause 17 which prescribes deposit of amount
  for contesting the elections cannot be regarded as arbitrary. If
  no amount is required to be deposited for contesting the
  elections the same is likely to result into chaos and undeserving
F elements would take advantage of tf'l.e situation In the lighter vein
  someone mentioned in the Court that if no amount is required
  to be deposited for contesting elections all the members of the
  association would contest elections and there would be no
  voters. Therefore, the plea that the arnount required to be
G deposited for contesting the elections should be reduced to a
  reasonable level cannot be accepted nor the said clause be
  regarded as illegal or arbitrary. Lastly, the contention that the
  amendments in the bye-laws are against and not in the interest
  of the junior members of the Bar and, therefore, appropriate
H direction to convene a fresh meeting of the Extraordinary
SUOHA v. PRESIDENT, ADV.ASSN.CHENNAI & ORS. 311
              (J.M . PANCHAL, J.]

General Body of the Association should be issued has no                A
substance. Except stating that the amendments carried out in
the bye-laws by thumping majority are against and not in the
interest of learned Junior Members of the Bar, it could not be
pointed out as to how the amendments are against the interest
of junior members of Bar. Thus, it is difficult for this Court to      B
accept such an argument advanced at the Bar.

      19. The Report of the Teller Committee indicates that the
 learned Members of the Teller Committee had performed
 yeomari service to the Members of the Association for which           C
 they deserve applaud. On the facts and in the circumstances
 of the case this Court is of the opinion that after passing of the
 order dated August 3, 201 0 the main grievance made by the
 learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court should not
 have interfered with the internal matters of the Association by
                                                                       0
 giving directions stood redressed . Therefore, the learned
 counsel for the respondents are right in contending that the
 petition had become infructuous and, therefore, no further
 directions should be given by this Court. Though it was not
 necessary for this Court to examine the validity· of the
 amendments carried out in the bye-laws, the said exercise was         E
 undertaken by the Court only because of the insistence of the
 learned counsel for the appellant and to maintain transparency,
 because the Teller Committee had undertaken the huge task
·pursuant to consent order passed by this Court. The Resolution
 passed on September 7, 2010 is perfectly legal and, therefore,        F
 the same is hereby upheld.

       20. The net result of the above discussion .i s that now this
Court does not find any substance in the appeal and, therefore,
the appeal deserves to be dismissed.                                   G

    21 . For the foregoing reasons the appeal fails and is
dismissed and there is no order as to costs.

R.P.                                           Appeal dismissed.