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

                     [2012] 6 S.C.R. 999


     SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS.                          A
                            v.
                     B.D. KAUSHIK
                   I.A. No. 5 of 2012
                            IN
                   I.A. No. 1 of 2011                              B
                            IN
        Civil Appeal Nos. 3401 & 3402 of 2003
                        JULY 20, 2012
    [ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]                        C

     Advocates - Election of office bearers of Supreme Court
Bar Association (SCBA) - Eligibility of the members of SCBA
to elect·- Direction of Supreme court to identify the members
of SCBA who were regular practitioners in Supreme Court as         D
they alone would be eligible to vote to elect the office bearers
of SCBA - Pursuant to the direction, Implementation
Committee laying down criteria for identification of members
regularly practising in Supreme Court - Dispute regarding the
criteria - Interlocutory Application seeking clarification and     E
directions in respect of the criteria evolved by Implementation
Committee - Held: Various suggestions made by the
Implementation Committee for the purpose of identifying
members of SCBA, regularly practising in Supreme Court,
accepted - Direction to the members ofthe Implementation
                                                                   F
Committee to modify the criteria in the light of the suggestions
accepted by the Court.

    The Supreme Court, in the present appeals while
determining interalia the question regarding eligibility of
the members of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA)                G
to elect the office bearers of the Association, issued
various directions on the basis of the principle of 'One Bar
one Vote' and called upon to device a mechanism to
identify the members of SCBA who practiced regularly
                              999                                  H
    1000   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A before Supreme Court and those members alone would
  be entitled to vote to elect the office bearers of SCBA.
  The Court further directed to appoint a Committee to
  identify the regular practitioners of Supreme Court and
  to prepare a list of members regularly practicing, not
B regularly practising in Supreme Court and list of
  temporary members of SCBA and to post these lists on
  SCBA website and SCBA Notice Board.

       Pursuant to the direction of the Court, an
  Implementation Committee consisting of senior
C advocates practicing in Supreme Court, was constituted.
  Certain disputes arose between the members of SCBA
  regarding the criteria laid down by the Implementation
  Committee for identification of members regul~rly
  practicing in Supreme Court. Therefore, instant
D Interlocutory Application was filed by SCBA seeking
  clarification and directions with regard to the criteria
  evolved by the Implementation Committee.

        Disposing of the application, the court
E
      HELD: 1. Certain suggestions need to be taken into
  consideration which were made by the Implementation
  Committee, while identifying the members of the SCBA
  who were regularly practicing in the Supreme Court for
  the purpose of determining their eligibility to vote to elect
F the office bearers of the SCBA. [Para 8) (1007-H; 1008-A)

     2. The first criteria laid down by the Implementation
  Committee that all the members of the SCBA who had 50
  appearances and/or 20 filings in a year, should be
G considered to be regular practitioners in the Supreme
  Court, is duly accepted. [Para 9) [1008-B-C]

      3. Suggestion to include advocates, who have been
  continuously representing the State Governments or the
H Union Government before the Supreme Court for at least
 SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 1001
             B.D. KAUSHIK

three years and have a minimum of 50 appearances for              A
such Government, in the category of regular practitioners
with right to vote, is accepted. [Para 9] [1008-B-C, E]
    4. Suggestion to include Advocates, who were
Government Standing Counsel or counsel appearing for
                                                                  8
the Government in the Supreme Court and all Advocates-
on-Record in the said category, is accepted. [Para 9]
[1008-C-D]
    5. Suggestion to include non-Advocates-on-Record
who were in the panel of Amicus Curiae, approved by the           C
Supreme Court Registry, and members who are working
as Mediators in the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, is
also accepted. [Para 9] [1008-D-E]
    6. Suggestion was made for inclusion of all Senior
Advocates of the Supreme Court, who are resident in               0
Delhi and attending the Supreme Court. It was rightly
pointed out that in view of the close proximity of the
satellite townships, which had grown up around Delhi,
such Senior Advocates who resided in Noida, Gurgaon,
Faridabad and Ghaziabad, should also be included in this          E
category. The said suggestion is sound and is accepted.
[Para 1O] [1008-F-G]
     7. Yet another criteria for identification of regular
practitioners in the Supreme Court, as suggested by the           F
Implementation Committee was that all members of the
SCBA who had attended the Supreme Court at least 90
days in the calendar year 2011, as established by the
database showing the use of proximity cards maintained
by the Registrar of the Supreme Court, could also be              G
included in the list of regular practitioners. It was felt that
instead of attendance of 90 days, the same should be
reduced to 60 days, which suggestion is duly accepted.
As a supplement to the above, it is also accepted that
appearances before the Chamber Judge, as also before
the Registrar's Courts, in the years 2009 and 2010, will          H
    1002   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012) 6 S.C.R.


A be counted towards the total number of appearances.
  [Para 11) [1008-H; 1009-A-B]
       8. The suggestions made by the Implementation
  Committee with regard to the directions. contained in the
  judgment delivered in the Civil Appeals regarding
8
  publication of details of the Voters' List on the website,
  showing the different categories of members of the SCBA
  who were recognized as regular practitioners and those
  who were not, was also taken up for cqnsiderati'on. It was
  felt that such publication could adversely affect the
C Advocates who were not shown to be regular
  practitioners in the Supreme Court. It was generally felt
  that the publication on the website should not be resorted
  to and individual members should be informed of their
  status either by E-mail or through SMS on their mobjle
D phones. The objection has merit and is allowed and such
  public~tion need not be effected. [Para 12) [1009-C-E]

      9. Allotment of Chambers, other than in the Supreme
  Court, should not be made a criteria for identifying
E members who were regular practitioners in the Supreme
  Court and the said decision was also considered and
  accepted. [Para 13) [1009-F]
       10. Persons who had contested elections to the
  Executive Committee of any Court annexed Bar
F Association, other than the SCBA, during any of the years
  from 2007 to 2012, could not be allowed to vote to elect
  the Office Bearers of the SCBA on the "One. Bar One
  Vote" princ'iple, or to attend the General Body meetings
  of the SCBA. The same would also include a person who
G 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. The said
  suggestion is also accepted and approved. [Para 14)
  [1009-G-H; 1010-A]
H      11. I.A. No.5 is, therefore, disposed of with a directi~n
 SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 1003
             B.D. KAUSHIK

to the Members of the Implementation Committee to               A
modify the criteria suggested by •t in the light of the above
suggestions, which have been accepted in this order, for
the purpose of identifying members of the SCBA, who are
regular practitioners in the Supreme Court, for the
purposes indicated in the judgment dated 26th                   B
September, 2011. [Para 15] [1010-B-C]
    Vinay Ba/chandra Joshi vs. Registrar General of
Supreme Court oflndia (1998) 7 SCC 461 - referred to.
                     Case Law Reference:                        c
    (1998) 1 sec 461        Referred to       Paras 3 and 5
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 5 of 2012.
                                IN
    I.A. N0.1 OF 2011                                           0

                                IN
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 3401 & 3402 OF 2003
    From the Jughment & order dated 05.04.2003 of the Civil     E
Judge, Delhi in Civil Suit Nos. 100 & 101 of 2003.
     A.K. Ganguly, Amarender Saran, Rakesh Khanna, Ranjit
Kumar, Mridul Aggarwal, Rajesh Aggarwal, Arun Kumar,
Ranjeet Sharma, Binay Kumar Das, Yugal Kishore Prasad,
Ram Shiromani Yadav, Narendra Kumar, Milind Kumar,              F
Tripurari Ray, B.K. Choudhary, Ravi Shankar Kumar, Brahmajit
Mishra, Baldeo Atrey, Parmanand Pandey, Dinesh Kumar
Garg, D.K. Thakur, B.P. Yadav, Devendra Jha, Sushil Kumar,
Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Nitin Kumar Thakur, Shivaji M. Jadhav
for the appearing parties.                                      G
    The Order of the Court was delivered by
      ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. 1.A.No.5 of 2012 has been filed
on behalf of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) in
Civil Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003 which were disposed      H
    1004    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A of by this Court on 7th May, 2012, with various directions. In
  fact, this application arises out of the said directions.
       2. The aforesaid appeals had been filed on behalf of the
  Supreme Court Bar Association and its then Honorary
  Secretary, Mr. Ashok Arora, and Ms. Sunita B. Rao,
B Coordinator, Implementation Committee of the Supreme Court
  Bar Association, against an interim order passed by the Civil
  Judge on 5th April, 2003, on an application for injunction filed
  in Civil Suit Nos.100 and 101 of 2003. In the said appeals
  various questions were raised regarding the administration of
C the Supreme Court Bar Association. One of the questions
  raised was with regard to the amendment of Rule 18 of the
  SCBA Rules governing the eligibility of the members of the
  SCBA to contest the elections to be elected and to elect the
  Office Bearers of the Association. After an extensive hearing,
D the appeals were disposed of by a detailed judgment with
  various directions, on the basis of the principle of "One Bar
  One Vote" projected by the learned Advocates who appeared
  in the matter.
E      3. While disposing of the said appeals the Hon'ble Judges
  noticed that there were many Advocates, admitted as members
  of the SCBA, who did not'practise regularly in the Supreme
  Court and were members of other Bar Associations and'-that
  the majority of them made their presence felt only during   '
  elections for the Office Bearers of the SCBA. This Court was,
F therefore, called upon to devise a mechanism by which those
  members of the SCBA who practised regularly in this Court
  could be identified as members who could be entitled to vote
  to elect the Office Bearers of the SCBA, and those who would
  not be entitled, while retaining their membership. After
G considering the matter at length, Their Lordships came to the
  conclusion that in order to identify those advocates who
  practised regularly in the Supreme Court, the criteria adopted
  by this Court for allotment of Chambers, as explained in Vinay
  Balchandra Joshi Vs. Registrar General of Supreme Court of
H
  SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 1005
       B.D. KAUSHIK [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

India [(1998) 7 SCC 461], should be adopted for the purpose A
of identifying the members who would be entitled to vote to elect
the Office Bearers of the SCBA. Their Lordships, accordingly,
directed that the criteria adopted in Vinay Balchandra Joshi's
case (supra), should be adopted by the SCBA and its Office
Bearers to identify those advocates who practised regulatly in B
the Supreme Court. A further direction was given that the Office
Bearers of the SCBA or a small Committee to be appointed
by the SCBA, consisting of three Senior Advocates, should
take steps to identify the regular practitioners in the manner
indicated in the order, and, thereafter, to prepare a list of      c
members regularly practising in this Court and another
separate list of members not regularly practising in this Court
and a third list of temporary members of the SCBA. These lists
were directed to be posted on the SCBA website and also ori
the SCBA Notice Board. It was also directed that a letter should 0
be sent by the SCBA to each member, informing him about the
status of his membership, on or before February 28, 2012. Any
aggrieved member would be entitled to make a representation
to the Committee within 15 days from the date of receipt of the
letterfrom the SCBA, and if a request was made to be heard . E
in person, the representation was to be heard by the Committee
and a decision thereupon was to be rendered in the time
specified therein. The decision of the Committee was to be
communicated to the member concerned and the same was
to be final, conclusive and binding on the member of the SCBA.
Thereafter, a final list of advocates regularly practising in this F
Court was to be displayed by the SCBA.

     4. Several other directions were also given as to what was
to be done after the final list of the regular practitioners was
made ready and published. The Court also found that the            G
amendment made in Rule 18 of the SCBA Rules was legal and
valid and that no right of the Advocates had been infringed by
such amendment.

    5. In keeping with the suggestions made on behalf of the
                                                                   H
    1006          SUPREME COURT REPORTS            (2012] 6 S.C.R.


A SCBA and the recommendations of the Court, Mr. K.K.
  Venugopal, Mr. P.P. Rao, and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, all Senior
  Advocates, practising in the Supreme Court, were appointed
  as the members of the Implementation Committee. After their
  appointment, the members of the Implementation Committee
B issued a questionnaire on 2nd January, 2012, which was
  forwarded to all the members of the SCBA, to be filled up and
  returned to the office of the SCBA for the purposes indicated
  in the judgment itself. The questionnaire was meant for Senior
  Advocates, Advocates-on-Record and Non-Advocates-on-
e Record. The same was prepared in keeping with the procedure
  followed in Vinay Balchandra Joshi's case (supra). Thereafter,
  the Implementation Committee held a meeting on 11th January,
  2012 and adopted the following resolutions :

        "2. In view of the directions of the Supreme Court of India,
D       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 fist of regular members
        practising in this Court ...... ", the following categories of
        members of SCBA, in addition to the fist of members
E       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':

F          (i)     All Advocates on Record who have fifed cases
                   during the calendar year 2011.

           (ii)    All Senior Advocates designated as Senior
                   Advocates by the Supreme Court of India, who are
                   resident in Delhi and attending the Supreme Court
G                  of India.

           (iii)   All members who subscribed to any of the cause
                   fists of the Supreme Court of India during the
                   calendar year 2011.
H
  SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 1007
       B.D. KAUSHIK [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

      (iv)   All members who have been members of the SCBA           A
             for the last 25 years, commencing 01.01.1986, and
             have been paying subscription to the SCBA
             regularly, in each one of the 25 years.

      3.     The list of such members who are eligible to vote       B
             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 dai:y cause list. Copies of this
             list will also be available at the reception desk in    C
             Library I.

      4.     The persons whose names figure in this list need
             not reply to the questionnaire issued earlier."

     6. At a further meeting of the Implementation Committee         D
held on 15th January, 2012, certain other resolutions were
adopted identifying some of the members of the SCBA who
were not required to fill up the questionnaire, except to indicate
the category under which they claimed to be regular members
practising in th& Supreme Court.                                     E
     7. Thereafter, certain incidents took place to which we
need not refer in these proceedings. However, certain disputes
arose between the members of the Supreme Bar Association
regarding the criteria laid down by the Implementation
Committee for identification of members who are regularly            F
practising in the Supreme Court. As a consequence,
Interlocutory Application No.5 came to be filed on behalf oflhe
Supreme Court Bar Association seeking clarification and
directions in regard to the criteria evolved by the Implementation
Committee.                                                           G

     8. The said application was heard in the presence of the
members of the SCBA and the Implementation Committee and
certain suggestions were made which we feel need to be taken
into consideration by the Implementation Committee while             H
    1008     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 6 S.C.R.


A   identifying the members of the SCBA who were regularly
    practising in the Supreme Court for the purpose of determining
    their eligibility to vote to elect the Office Bearers of the SCBA.
    In fact, certain suggestions were made with regard to criteria
    evolved by the Implementation Committee.
B
       9. The first criteria laid down by the Implementation
  Committee that all the members of the SCBA who had 50
  appearances and/or 20 filings in a year, should be considered
  to be regular practitioners in the Supreme Court, was duly
C accepted. A suggestion was also made to include advocates
  who have been continuously representing the State
  Governments or the Union Government before the Supreme
  Court for at least three years and have a minimum of 50
  appearai:ices for such Government, in the category of regular
  practitioners with right to vote. Another suggestion was made
D to include Advocates, who were Government Standing Counsel
  or counsel appearing for the Government in the Supreme Court
  and all Advocates-on-Record in the said category. It was also
  suggested that non-Advocates-on-Record who were in the
  panel of Amicus Curiae, approved by the Supreme Court
E Registry, and members who are working as Mediators in the
  Supreme Court Mediation Centre, be also included in this
  catego,.Y. The said suggestions were found to be sound and
  were accepted.

F       10. The next suggestion of the Implementation Committee
  was with regard to the inclusion of all Senior Advocates of the
  Supreme Court, who are resident in Delhi and attending the
  Supreme Court. It was rightly pointed out that in view of the
  close proximity of the satellite townships, which had grown up
G around Delhi, such Senior Advocates who resided in Noida,
  Gurgaon, Faridabad and Ghaziabad, should also be included
  in this category. The said suggestion is sound and is accepted.

      11. Yet an~ther criteria for identification of regular
  practitioners in the Supreme Court as suggested by the
H Implementation Committee was that all members of the SCBA
  SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 1009
       B.D. KAUSHIK [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

who had attended the Supreme Court at least 90 days in the           A
calendar year 2011, as established by the database showing
the use of proximity cards maintained by the Registrar of the
Supreme Court, could also be included in the list of regular
practitioners. It was felt that instead of attendance of 90 days,
the same should be reduced to 60 days, which suggestion is           B
duly accepted. As a supplement to the above, it is also
accepted that appearances before the Chamber Judge, as also
befqre the Registrar's Courts, in the years 2009 and 2010, will
be counted towards the total number of appearances.

     12. One of the suggestions made by the Implementation           C
Committee with regard to the directions contained in the
judgment delivered in the Civil Appeals regarding publication
of details of the Voters' List on the website, showing the
different categories of members of the SCBA who were
recognized as regular practitioners and those who were not,          D
was also taken up for consideration. It was felt that such
publication could adversely affect the learned Advocates who
were not shown to be regular practitioners in the Supreme
Court. It was generally felt that the publication on the website
should not be resorted to and individual members should be           E
informed of their status either by E-mail or through SMS on their
mobile phones. The objection has merit and is allowed and
such publication need not be effected.

    13. It was specifically felt that allotment of Chambers, other   F
than in the Supreme Court, should not be made a criteria for
identifying members who were regular practitioners in the
Supreme Court and the said decision was also considered and
accepted.

      14. It was lastly indicated that persons who had contested     G
elections to the Executive Committee of any Court annexed Bar
Association, other than the SCBA, during any of the years from
2007 to 2012, could not be allowed to vote to elect the Office
Bearers of the SCBA on the "One Bar One Vote" principle, or
to attend the General Body meetings of the SCBA. The same            H
    1010     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 6 S.C.k.


A   would also include a person who had cast his vote in any
    election to the Executive Committee of any Court annexed Bar
    Association, other than the SCBA, for the abovementioned
    years. The said suggestion is also accepted and approved.

B       15. I.A. No.5 filed in the disposed of Appeals is, therefore,
  disposed of with a direction to the Members of the
  Implementation Committee to modify the criteria suggested by
  it in the light of the above suggestions, which have been
  accepted in this order, for the purpose of identifying members
  of the SCBA, who are regular practitioners in the Supreme
C Court, for the purposes indicated in the judgment dated 26th
  September, 2011.

       16. The Members of the Implementation Committee are
  directed to take expeditious steps in finalizing the Voters' List
D of members of the SCBA entitled to cast their votes in the
  election of Office Bearers of the SCBA, and, thereafter, to set
  the programme for the election of the Office Bearers and
  conduct the same as expeditiously as possible. Till then, the
  arrangement with regard to the management of the SCBA, as
E is existing, shall continue.

    K.K.T.                                         I.A. disposed of.