//
you're reading...
legal issues

supreme court bar association = amendment to the bye laws =the resolution “One Bar One Vote”, which was adopted in the General Body Meeting dated February 18, 2003. The notices of the election and about formation of the Implementation Committee were sent to the Members of the Bar Association on March 11, 2003 again along with the cause list and conveyed also by displaying the same on the notice board of the SCBA. On March 13, 2003, meeting of the Implementation Committee was held and the declaration form was finalized and programme for implementation was also decided. The notices regarding declaration form were again issued on March 25, 2003. Meanwhile, Mr. B.D. Kaushik, who is one of the members of the SCBA as well as a member of the High Court Bar Association, Delhi Bar Association, Tis Hazari Courts, filed Suit No. 100 of 2003 in the Court of

The supreme court of india. Taken about 170 m ...

Image via Wikipedia

 Reportable



 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA



 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3401 OF 2003




Supreme Court Bar Association

and others ... Appellants


 Versus


B.D. Kaushik ... Respondent




 WITH


 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3402 OF 2003


Supreme Court Bar Association ... Appellant


 Versus


A.K. Manchanda ... Respondent





 J U D G M E N T




J.M. Panchal, J.





 Since common issues for determination are 



involved in Civil Appeal No. 3401 of 2003 and Civil 


 2


Appeal No. 3402 of 2003, this Court proposes to 



dispose them of by this common judgment.




2. Civil Appeal No. 3401 of 2003 is filed by three 



appellants, i.e., (1) Supreme Court Bar Association 



(Registered), through its Honorary Secretary Mr. Ashok 



Arora, (2) Shri Ashok Arora, Honorary Secretary of 



Supreme Court Bar Association and (3) Ms. Sunita B. 



Rao, Coordinator, Implementation Committee, 



Supreme Court Bar Association (for short "SCBA"), 



Tilak Marg, New Delhi. It is directed against interim 



order dated April 5, 2003, passed by learned Civil 



Judge, Delhi below application filed under Order 39 



Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure 



Code (CPC) filed in Civil Suit No. 101 of 2003. Civil 



Appeal No. 3402 of 2003 is filed by Supreme Court Bar 



Association through its Honorary Secretary against 



interim order dated April 5, 2003, passed by the 



learned Civil Judge below application filed under Order 



39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPC, filed in 



Civil Suit No. 101 of 2003. By the common order, the 



appellants are restrained from implementing the 


 3


resolution dated February 18, 2003 amending Rule 18 



of the Rules and Regulations of SCBA till the final 



disposal of both the suits.




3. The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 3401 of 2003 



is Shri B.D. Kaushik whereas the respondent in Civil 



Appeal No. 3402 of 2003 is Shri A.K. Manchanda. 



Both the respondents are the advocates practicing in 



Delhi. They are members of SCBA, Delhi High Court 



Bar Association, Delhi Bar Association, Tis Hazari 



Courts, Delhi, etc. The appellant No. 1, i.e., Supreme 



Court Bar Association is a Society registered on August 



25, 1999 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 



and its Registration No. is 35478 of 1999. The 



Registered Office of the Association is in Supreme 



Court premises at New Delhi. The provisions of the 



Societies Registration Act, 1860 empower a society to 



frame Memorandum of Association and Rules and 



Regulations. In exercise of those powers the 



Association has framed Memorandum of Association of 



the SCBA as also the Rules and Regulations. The aims 



and objectives of the Association are specified in 


 4


Clause 3 of the Memorandum of Association, which are 



as under: -




 "3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The Aims 

 and Objectives of the association are:


 i) To promote upholding of rule of law;


 ii) To encourage profession of law in 

 India;


 iii) To promote and protect the privileges, 

 interest and prestige of the association 

 and to promote union and cooperation 

 among the advocates practicing in the 

 court and other associations and 

 advocates;


 iv) To promote and maintain high 

 standards of profession among 

 members of the Bar;


 v) To establish and maintain an adequate 

 library for the use of the members and 

 to provide other facilities and 

 convenience to the members;


 vi) To watch the state of law, progress of 

 legislation and administration of 

 justice and to take such steps as may 

 be necessary for their progress and 

 reform;


 vii) To express opinion on proposed 

 legislation and other matters of 

 interest and to make representation in 

 respect thereof;


 viii) To take necessary steps to prevent and 

 remedy any abuse of law or mal-

 administration of justice;


 5


 ix) To make representation from time to 

 time to the authorities on matters 

 affecting the Bar;


 x) To acquire and safeguard the rights 

 and privileges necessary or convenient 

 for the purpose of the association;


 xi) To arrange for raising funds for legal 

 aid and to do everything including 

 applying of funds that may be 

 necessary to that end;


 xii) To promote and participate in All India 

 Lawyers' Association and activities 

 connected therewith;


 xiii) To adopt all such matters as might be 

 necessary or incidental to the carrying 

 out of the aforesaid objects;


 xiv) To take measures including founding 

 and applying of funds for aid to 

 deserving members of the association 

 and its employees;


 xv) To conduct and hold seminars, 

 symposia, conference on issues and 

 topics of interest to the legal profession 

 and to disseminate information in this 

 behalf; and


 xvi) To promote the welfare of the members 

 of the association."





The Rules and Regulations framed by the Association 



are known as Rules and Regulations of Supreme Court 



Bar Association. Rule 3 of the Rules and Regulations 



defines certain phrases. Rule 3(i) defines `Association' 


 6


to mean the Supreme Court Bar Association. There 



are four classes of Members as specified in Rule 4. 



They are (i) Resident Members, (ii) Non-resident 



Members, (iii) Associate Members, and (iv) Non-Active 



Members. As per Rule 3(ii) `Associate Member' means 



an association of advocates practicing in a High Court 



or Judicial Commissioner's Court and enrolled as such 



a Member. Rule 3(iv) defines the term `Committee' to 



mean Executive Committee of the Bar Association 



whereas Rule 3(v) defines the word `Court' to mean the 



Supreme Court of India. The term `Member' is defined 



in Rule 3(vi) to mean a member of Association. Sub-



rule (vi)(a) of Rule 3, which was inserted by resolution 



of Special General Body Meeting dated September 9, 



2010 retrospectively with effect from September 14, 



2009, defines `Temporary Member' to mean a member 



other than a member within the meaning of Rule 3(vi). 



`Non-Active Member' is defined in Rule 3(viii) to mean a 



Member whose name is kept on the list of Members 



notwithstanding he has accepted an office of profit 



disentitling him to practice. The phrase `Resident 


 7


Member' is defined in Rule 3(ix) to mean a member 



residing and practicing as an advocate in Delhi or its 



suburbs. Rule 5 of the Rules and Regulations deals 



with fees, admission and subscription.




 Rule 5(v)(a) provides that in terms of Rule 5 an 



applicant found to be suitable to be made a member of 



the Association, will be made a member, initially on 



temporary basis for a period of two years. It further 



provides that a person so made a member on 



temporary basis will be identified as temporary 



member and such temporary member will be entitled 



to avail the facilities of the Association such as library 



and canteen etc., but he will 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 and to be issued a Library Card. 



Explanation appended to Rule 5(v)(b) makes it clear 



that `suitable' means a person applying must fulfill all 



the criteria listed in the Rules and Regulations of the 



Association, viz., Rule 5(v) and also satisfy the 



requirements prescribed in the prescribed form. As 


 8


per Rule 5(v)(c) at the end of two years period from the 



date of approval of temporary membership by the 



Executive Committee, if such temporary member pays 



SCBA dues without any default during such period 



and produces the proof of either of the following of 



requirements before the Executive Committee, his 



name would be considered for being made a regular 



Member of the Association - (i) appearance in Supreme 



Court as lead counsel in at least five matters in each 



year of the two years period, or (ii) appearance in 



Supreme Court as a junior advocate appearing with 



any senior advocate/advocate-on record in at least 



twenty matters in each year of the two years period, 



(iii) only such of the temporary members on satisfying 



the above requirements at the end of two years period 



would be made a member of the Association with an 



entitlement to all the privileges of the Association 



including the right to contest and vote and Library 



Card etc., else, he/she shall continue to remain a 



temporary member till such time he/she fulfills these 



conditions.


 9


4. A requisition dated January 10, 2003 signed by 



 343 Members was received in the Office of the 



 SCBA on January 23, 2003. By the said 



 requisition an amendment was sought in Rule 18 



 regarding the eligibility of the members to contest 



 and vote at an election. It was proposed that the 



 member, who exercises his right to vote in any 



 High Court or District Court, Advocates'/Bar 



 Association, shall not be eligible to contest for 



 any post of the SCBA or to cast his vote at the 



 elections. It was further proposed that every 



 member before casting his vote shall in a 



 prescribed form give a declaration that he is not 



 voting in any other election of advocates in the 



 High Court/District Court Bar Association. It 



 was also proposed that if such a declaration is 



 found to be false, it shall entail automatic 



 suspension of the member giving such false 



 declaration from membership of SCBA for a 



 period of three years. The requisition dated 



 January 10, 2003 was considered in the 


 10


Executive Committee meeting held on February 1, 



2003 and it was decided to hold a special General 



Body Meeting on February 18, 2003 to consider 



the requisition. Rule 22 of the Rules and 



Regulations of SCBA provides that the Executive 



Committee may call a General Body Meeting on 



seven days' notice to the members whereas Rule 



23 stipulates the manner in which notice of 



meeting has to be given to a member. 



Accordingly notices for the aforesaid General 



Body Meeting were issued by the SCBA on 



February 6, 2003. The notices 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 at Supreme Court 



premises. The notices were also sent to different 



Bar Associations at Delhi including the Delhi Bar 



Association. On February 18, 2003 the General 



Body Meeting was convened wherein more than 



278 Members had participated. Mr. Ved Sharma 



and Mr. Rajiv Khosla, Office Bearers/Members of 


 11


the District/Delhi Bar Association had 



participated and had spoken against the 



resolution in the General Body Meeting. After 



due deliberations and discussion, the resolution 



proposing amendment in Rule 18 of the Rules 



was put to vote. It was passed by majority of 85% 



of the members present and voting. Thereafter, a 



meeting of the Executive Committee was 



convened on March 3, 2003. In the said meeting 



it was resolved to hold election of the Office 



Bearers/Executive Members for the next session 



and for the constitution of Election Committee. It 



was further resolved to hold election on April 25, 



2003. An election Committee of three members of 



the SCBA was constituted for the purposes of 



conducting election. Further in the said meeting 



a requisition signed by 237 Members of SCBA to 



recall resolution dated February 18, 2003 was 



considered and dealt with. It was decided to 



defer the consideration of the said resolution in 



view of the fact that elections were declared. 


 12


Moreover, in the meeting of the Executive 



Committee held on March 10, 2003 it was 



resolved to constitute an Implementation 



Committee to implement the resolution "One Bar 



One Vote", which was adopted in the General 



Body Meeting dated February 18, 2003. The 



notices of the election and about formation of the 



Implementation Committee were sent to the 



Members of the Bar Association on March 11, 



2003 again along with the cause list and 



conveyed also by displaying the same on the 



notice board of the SCBA. On March 13, 2003, 



meeting of the Implementation Committee was 



held and the declaration form was finalized and 



programme for implementation was also decided. 



The notices regarding declaration form were again 



issued on March 25, 2003. Meanwhile, Mr. B.D. 



Kaushik, who is one of the members of the SCBA 



as well as a member of the High Court Bar 



Association, Delhi Bar Association, Tis Hazari 



Courts, filed Suit No. 100 of 2003 in the Court of 


 13


Shri Sanjeev Jain, Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi, 



challenging validity of resolution dated February 



18, 2003. He has sought a decree declaring that 



Resolution dated February 18, 2003, passed by 



the General Body Meeting of SCBA inserting Rule 



18-III, is illegal and ineffective. He had also 



prayed for a decree of perpetual injunction 



restraining the SCBA and its Office Bearers from 



implementing the Resolution dated February 18, 



2003 in the elections of SCBA, which were 



proposed to be held on April 25, 2003. Further, 



the prayer to restrain the SCBA and its election 



officers from debarring any of the members of the 



SCBA, who had already paid their subscription 



from casting their votes in the ensuing elections 



was also sought. Mr. A.K. Manchanda, another 



member of the SCBA, filed suit No. 101 of 2003 in 



the Court of Shri Sanjeev Jain, Commercial Civil 



Judge, Delhi, seeking the reliefs which were 



sought by Mr. B.D. Kaushik in his suit No. 100 of 



2003.


 14


5. Mr. B.D. Kaushik and Mr. A.K. Manchanda, the 



 plaintiffs in Suit Nos. 100 of 2003 and 101 of 



 2003 respectively, filed applications under Order 



 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the 



 Code of Civil Procedure to restrain the 



 defendants, who are appellants herein, from 



 implementing the Resolution dated February 18, 



 2003 till the final disposal of the suits. Both the 



 applications were taken up together for hearing 



 by the learned Judge. The learned Judge 



 disposed of those applications seeking temporary 



 injunction by common order dated April 5, 2003. 



 By the said common order the applications filed 



 by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 



 were allowed and the appellants were restrained 



 from implementing the Resolution dated February 



 18, 2003 amending Rule 18 of the Rules and 



 Regulations of the SCBA till the final disposal of 



 the suits. As the injunction granted by the 



 learned Judge had far reaching repercussions, 



 the appellants straightway approached this Court 


 15


by filing Special Leave Petition No. D-7644 of 



2003 against order dated April 5, 2003 in Suit 



No. 100 of 2003, passed by the learned Civil 



Judge, Delhi. The SCBA also filed Special leave 



Petition No. D-7645 of 2003 against order dated 



April 5, 2003 in Suit No. 101 of 2003. The 



matters were placed before this Court in 



mentioning list on April 10, 2003. This Court 



had heard the then learned Attorney General and 



other learned senior advocates practicing in this 



Court. The matters were taken on Board and 



straightway leave was granted. Pending 



proceedings, stay of the common order passed by 



the trial court was also granted. It was made 



clear that if any elections were held, the same 



shall be subject to the result of these appeals. It 



was also clarified that the order shall be effective 



notwithstanding any other order made by any 



court or authority in any other proceedings filed 



or yet to be filed. On leave being granted Special 



Leave Petition No. D-7644 of 2003 is numbered 


 16


 as Civil Appeal No. 3401 of 2003 whereas Special 



 Leave Petition No. D-7645 of 2003 is numbered 



 as Civil Appeal No. 3402 of 2003.




6. This Court had appointed Mr. Ranjit Kumar, 



 learned senior counsel practicing in this Court, 



 as Amicus Curie to assist the Court in the 



 matters. This Court has also requested learned 



 Attorney General Mr. Goolam Vahanvati to 



 express his views in the matters and to assist the 



 Court. Accordingly, this Court has heard learned 



 Attorney General as well as learned senior 



 counsel Mr. Ranjit Kumar. The Court has also 



 heard Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal, who has appeared on 



 behalf of the appellants as well as Mr. Dinesh 



 Kumar Garg, learned advocate who appeared on 



 behalf of the original plaintiffs. This being a 



 matter, which affects the learned advocates 



 practicing in this Court, the Court has also heard 



 learned senior counsel Mr. P.P. Rao, former 



 President of SCBA, Mr. Pravin Parekh, present 



 President of SCBA and Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, 


 17


 President of Association of Advocates-on-Record. 



 The Court has considered the Memorandum of 



 Association of SCBA as well as Rules and 



 Regulations of SCBA.




7. It is not disputed by any of the learned advocates 



 appearing in the matters that after stay of 



 common order dated April 5, 2003, passed in 



 Civil Suit No. 100 of 2003 and Civil Suit No. 101 



 of 2003 was granted by this Court on April 10, 



 2003, elections of the office bearers of the SCBA 



 have taken place and Rule 18 of the Rules and 



 Regulations, as was amended by the Resolution 



 dated February 18, 2003, has been implemented.




8. Article 145 (1)(a) of the Constitution empowers 



 the Supreme Court to make Rules for regulating 



 generally the practice and procedure of the Court 



 including Rules as to the persons practicing 



 before the Court. In exercise of this 



 constitutional power, the Supreme Court has 



 framed Rules called Supreme Court Rules, 1966. 


 18


Rule 2(1)(b) provides that an advocate-on-record 



to be the only person to "act" as well as to "plead" 



before this Court. The other two categories of 



persons, namely, "senior advocate" and "non-



advocate-on-record" can only plead, but cannot 



act on behalf of the client. Their 



appearances/pleadings in a case before this 



Court cannot be without an advocate-on-record 



and without his instructions. Order IV of the 



Supreme Court Rules, 1966 deals with 



"advocates". Rule 1 states that subject to the 



provisions of the Rules only those advocates 



whose names are entered on the roll of any State 



Bar Council, maintained under the Advocates 



Act, 1961, shall be entitled to appear and plead 



before the Court. As per Rule 2(b) certain 



restrictions have been placed on senior advocate 



who is recognized as such under Rule 2(a), 



mentioning inter-alia that he cannot file a 



vakalatnama or act in any court or tribunal in 



India or accept instructions to draw pleadings or 


 19


affidavits, etc. Explanation (iii) appended to the 



Order IV defines "junior" to mean an advocate 



other than a senior advocate. Rule 6(a) provides 



that an advocate-on-record shall, on his filing a 



memorandum of appearance on behalf of a party 



accompanied by a vakalatnama duly executed by 



the party, is entitled to act as well as to plead for 



the party in the matter and to conduct and to 



prosecute before the Court all proceedings that 



may be taken in respect of the said matter. 



Clause (b) of Rule 6 mentions that no advocate 



other than an advocate-on-record shall be 



entitled to file an appearance or act for a party in 



the court. Rule 10 of the Rules provides that no 



advocate other than an advocate-on-record shall 



appear and plead in any matter unless he is 



instructed by an advocate-on-record, whereas 



Rule 12 enables an advocate-on-record or a firm 



of advocates to employ one or more clerks to 



attend the registry for presenting or receiving any 



papers on behalf of the said advocate or firm of 


 20


 advocates. Rule 12(2) mandates that notice of 



 every application for the registration of a clerk 



 shall be given to the Secretary, SCBA, who shall 



 be entitled to bring to the notice of the Registrar 



 within seven days of the receipt of the notice any 



 facts, which, in his opinion, may have a bearing 



 on the suitability of the clerk to be registered. 



 Rule 13(1) requires the Registrar to publish list of 



 persons proved to his satisfaction by evidence of 



 general repute or otherwise, habitually to act as 



 touts to be known as list of touts. Explanation 



 (b) appended to Rule 13(1) mentions that the 



 passing of a resolution by the SCBA or by High 



 Court Bar Association declaring any person to be 



 tout shall be evidence of general repute of such 



 person for the purpose of this Rule.




9. The Advocates Act, 1961 provides for the creation 



 of different State Bar Councils, whose one or the 



 main function is to admit advocates on its rolls 



 and to promote the growth of Bar Associations for 



 the purpose of effective implementation of the 


 21


welfare schemes. It further enables the Bar 



Councils to make their own rules. Section 17 of 



the Advocates Act provides that every Sate Bar 



Council shall prepare and maintain roll of 



advocates. Section 17(4) further states that no 



person shall be enrolled as an advocate on the 



roll of more than one State Bar Council. Section 



49 of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the Bar 



Council of India to make rules. In exercise of the 



said power Bar Council of India has framed 



Rules. Chapter III of Bar Council Rules provides 



that every advocate shall be under an obligation 



to ensure that his name appears on the roll of the 



State Bar Council in whose jurisdiction he 



ordinarily practices and if that advocate does not 



apply for transfer of his name to the roll of State 



Bar Council within whose jurisdiction he 



ordinarily practices within six months of the start 



of such practice, it shall be deemed that he is 



guilty of professional misconduct. Section 34 of 



the Advocates Act, 1961 also empowers the High 


 22


 Courts to make Rules regarding the advocate 



 practicing in the High Court and courts 



 subordinate thereto.




10. The learned counsel, appearing in the matters, 



 pointed out to the Court that problem of bogus 



 voting in the election of office bearers of SCBA 



 started since the year 1978. According to the 



 learned counsel, in the year 1978, 101 Members 



 contested election for the post of Members of 



 Executive Committee. The grievance made by the 



 learned counsel was that those advocates, who 



 were not regularly practicing in this Court, were 



 enrolled as Members of the SCBA only to vote at 



 the election of office bearers of the SCBA. 



 According to the learned counsel, the advocates, 



 who have been enrolled as Members of the SCBA 



 are practicing either at Kanpur or at Gurgaon 



 and other courts situated in India, but they never 



 practice in this Court regularly nor are even able 



 to recognize the Hon'ble Judges of this Court. 



 The learned counsel emphasized that those 


 23


 advocates, who are not practicing in this Court 



 and are enrolled as members of the SCBA, have 



 outnumbered the actual practitioners in this 



 Court and do not permit the actual practitioners 



 to be office bearers of the SCBA. Thus the 



 learned advocates appearing in the matters have 



 called upon this Court to consider the problem 



 posed in the appeals in the light of facts 



 mentioned by them.




11. The Supreme Court Bar Association, as the name 



 suggests, is a society primarily meant to promote 



 the welfare of the advocates generally practicing 



 in the Supreme Court. The name, i.e., the 



 Supreme Court Bar Association was formally 



 registered under the Societies Registration Act, 



 1860 only on August 25, 1999. One of the prime 



 objectives of the SCBA is to establish and 



 maintain adequate library for the use of the 



 members and to provide other facilities and 



 convenience of the members. Thus, the 



 formation of the SCBA is in the nature of aid to 


 24


 the Advocates Act, 1961 and other relevant 



 statutes including Article 145 of the Constitution. 




12. There is no manner of doubt that court annexed 



 Bar Associations constitute a separate class 



 different from other lawyers associations such as 



 Lawyers' Forum, All India Advocates' Association, 



 etc. as they are always recognized by the 



 concerned court. Court annexed Bar 



 Associations function as part of the machinery for 



 administration of justice. As is said often, the 



 Bench and Bar are like two wheels of a chariot 



 and one cannot function without the other. The 



 court annexed Bar Associations start with the 



 name of the court as part of the name of the Bar 



 Association concerned. That is why we have 



 Supreme Court Bar Association, Tis Hazari 



 District Court Bar Association, etc. The very 



 nature of such a Bar Association necessarily 



 means and implies that it is an association 



 representing members regularly practicing in the 



 court and responsible for proper conduct of its 


 25


 members in the court and for ensuring proper 



 assistance to the court. In consideration thereof, 



 the court provides space for office of the 



 association, library and all necessary facilities 



 like chambers at concessional rates for members 



 regularly practicing in the court, parking place, 



 canteen besides several other amenities. In the 



 functions organized by the court annexed Bar 



 Associations the Judges participate and exchange 



 views and ascertain the problems, if any, to solve 



 them and vice-versa. There is thus regular 



 interaction between the members of the Bar 



 Association and the Judges. The regular 



 practitioners are treated as officers of the court 



 and are shown due consideration.




13. Enrolment of advocates not practicing regularly 



 in the court is inconsistent with the main aim 



 and object of the Association. No court can 



 provide chambers or other facilities for such 



 outside advocates, who are not regular 



 practitioners. Neither the Association nor the 


 26


court can deal with them effectively if they 



commit any wrong. There are sufficient 



indications in the Memorandum of Association 



and the Rules and Regulations of SCBA, which 



indicate that the Association mainly tries to 



promote and protect the privileges, interest and 



prestige of the Association and to promote union 



and cooperation among the advocates practicing 



in the court and other associations of advocates. 



This is quite evident if one refers to sub-clause 



(iii) of clause (3) of the Aims and Objectives of the 



Association. It is significant to note that the 



signatories of the Memorandum of Association, 



namely, Members of the Executive Committee, 



whose names are mentioned, are all regular 



practitioners, who got the Association registered 



under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Mr. 



P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel has given all 



credit for registration of Association to Shri K.K. 



Venugopal, one of the senior-most counsel of this 



Court.


 27


14. Rule 6 of the Rules and Regulations of the SCBA 



 mentions the duties of Members. It inter alia 



 provides that (i) a member shall endeavour to 



 provide full assistance to the court and 



 competent representation to a client, (iii) a 



 member shall not knowingly (a) make a false 



 statement of material fact or of law to the court, 



 (b) shall not seek to influence the court or Judges 



 or officers of the court in any matter by means 



 prohibited by law or by false representation on 



 behalf of his client nor shall such member 



 communicate with such persons ex-parte or 



 engage in conduct intending to bring disrepute to 



 the functioning of the court. Rule 6(iii)(c) 



 provides that a member of the Association shall 



 participate in serving those persons/groups of 



 persons who are unable to pay all or portion of 



 reasonable fees or who are unable to obtain 



 representation by counsel. Clause (c) of Rule 



 6(iii) inter alia states that a member may 



 discharge his duty to serve those persons who are 


 28


 unable to pay all or portions of reasonable fees by 



 providing professional services at no fees or at a 



 substantially reduced fee. A member of the 



 Association has to charge reasonable fees from 



 his client which has to be determined on the 



 basis of the time and labour spent over the 



 matter and is not entitled to charge a contingent 



 fee. Thus duties of members contemplate that 



 the members should be regular practitioners in 



 the Supreme Court.




15. As noticed earlier, no person can be enrolled as 



 an advocate on the roll of more than one State 



 Bar Council. A citizen of India is entitled to cast 



 his vote at an election of Legislative Assembly or 



 an election of M.P. only in the constituency where 



 his name appears as a voter in the voting list and 



 he cannot claim right to vote at another place 



 where he may be residing because of his 



 occupation, service, etc. Thus "one person one 



 vote" is recognized statutorily since long. Viewed 



 in the light of these facts, the concept of voting 


 29


 introduced by amendment of Rule 18 of the Rules 



 and Regulations of the SCBA cannot be regarded 



 as illegal or unconstitutional. It is well settled by 



 catena of reported decisions of this Court that the 



 right to vote is not an absolute right. Right to 



 vote or to contest election is neither a 



 Fundamental Right nor a common law right, but 



 it is purely a statutory right governed by statute/ 



 rules/regulations. The right to contest an 



 election and to vote can always be restricted or 



 abridged, if statute/ rules or regulations 



 prescribe so. Voting right restrictions also existed 



 in Rule 18 and 18A before Rule 18 was amended. 



 By amendment a further restriction is imposed by 



 the Resolution adopted in the General Body 



 Meeting. 




16. The argument that by the said amendment of 



 Rule 18 the Aims and Objects of the SCBA are 



 amended without prior approval of the Registrar 



 of Societies and, therefore, the same is illegal, 



 cannot be accepted. The impugned order makes 


 30


 it more than clear that this ground has heavily 



 weighed with the learned Judge in granting the 



 injunction. The substance and purpose of the 



 amendment made in Rule 18 of the Rules and 



 Regulations of the SCBA cannot be lost site of. It 



 does not affect any of the aims and objectives of 



 the SCBA. On the contrary, it promotes and 



 protects privileges, interest and prestige of the 



 SCBA. There is no manner of doubt that the 



 amended Rule 18 promotes union and 



 cooperation among the advocates practicing in 



 this Court and this is one of the prime aims and 



 objectives of forming the SCBA. The SCBA exists 



 for the purpose of promoting the interest of the 



 Supreme Court of India as well as that of 



 advocates regularly practicing in the Court and 



 not of the advocates, who are not regularly 



 practicing in the Court. 




17. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned 



 counsel for the appellant that restrictions placed 



 on right of voting can hardly be regarded as 


 31


altering or amending Aims and Objects of SCBA. 



The Aims and Objects of SCBA have been 



enumerated in earlier part of this judgment. The 



basic principle underlying the amendment of Rule 



18 is that those advocates who are not practicing 



regularly in this Court cannot be permitted to 



take over the affairs of the SCBA nor on ransom. 



One of the Aims and Objects of the SCBA is to 



promote and protect the privileges, interest and 



prestige of the Association whereas another 



objective is to promote and maintain high 



standards of profession among members of the 



Bar. To achieve these objectives Rule 18 is 



amended. It is wrong to hold that 



limitations/restrictions on the exercise of right to 



vote and contest the elections amount to altering 



and/or amending and/ or changing Aims and 



Objects of the SCBA and this could not have been 



done without the consent of Registrar as provided 



in Societies Registration Act, 1860.


 32


18. Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 



 invests a society with the power to frame rules/ 



 regulations to govern the body of any society 



 under the Act, which has been established for 



 any particular purpose or purposes. In built in it 



 is the authority to alter or abridge such power. If 



 such a wide power is conferred including power to 



 alter, amend or abridge the purpose itself, it 



 could never be successfully contended that the 



 power to amend, vary or rescind the rules does 



 not exist in such society.




19. As noticed earlier `Associate Member' means an 



 association of advocates practicing in a High 



 Court or Judicial Commissioners' Court and 



 enrolled as such a member. As an association of 



 advocates cannot practice in a High Court or 



 Judicial Commissioners' Court, it is obvious that 



 an associate member is a member of association 



 of advocates practicing in a High Court and 



 enrolled as such a Member. The intention, 



 therefore, is obvious that it is only an advocate, 


 33


 who is practicing in a High Court or in a court of 



 Judicial Commissioner and enrolled as a 



 member, who is entitled to the status of an 



 `Associate Member' for the purpose of the Rules 



 and Regulations of the SCBA. When it comes to 



 the question of voting or contesting for an 



 election, Rule 18(1)(iv) declares that non-active 



 members and associate members shall not have 



 right to vote. It is, therefore, clear that the SCBA 



 is constituted primarily for those advocates who 



 are regularly practicing in the Supreme Court. 



 Other advocates can become non-resident senior 



 members, non-resident members, associate 



 members and non-active members, but they will 



 not be eligible to vote much less to contest the 



 election. Thus, the amendment in Rule 18 is 



 wholly consistent with the aims and objectives of 



 the SCBA.




20. This Court further finds that in the application 



 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs in each suit 



 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 


 34


 151 CPC, injunction against the appellants to 



 restrain them from implementing resolution dated 



 February 18, 2003 amending Rule 18 of the 



 Rules and Regulations of SCBA till the final 



 disposal of the suits, was claimed. A bare 



 perusal of the plaint of Civil Suit No. 100 of 2003 



 indicates that the respondent has claimed 



 following reliefs in the plaint: -




 "a. A decree of declaration declaring that 

 the resolution dated 18.2.2003 passed 

 by the alleged General Body Meeting of 

 Supreme Court Bar Association 

 amending Rule 18-III is illegal and 

 ineffective;


b. pass a decree of perpetual injunction 

 restraining the defendant No. 1 

 Association and its office bearers from 

 implementing the resolution dated 

 18.2.2003 in the ensuing elections of 

 Supreme Court Bar Association 

 proposed to be held on 25.4.2003;


c. This Hon'ble Court may also be pleased 

 to restrain the defendant No. 1 

 association, its election officer(s) from 

 debarring any of the members of 

 Supreme Court Bar Association who 

 have already paid their subscription 

 from casting their vote in the ensuing 

 elections.


d. Any other proper and further order 

 which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may 


 35


 kindly be passed in favour of the 

 plaintiff and against the defendants."





Thus, the learned Judge has decreed the suit partially 



by granting injunction without adjudicating rival claims 



of the parties. This Court in catena of reported 



decisions has laid down the principle that interim relief, 



which has tendency to allow the final relief claimed in 



the proceedings, should not be granted lightly. No 



special circumstances have been mentioned in the two 



impugned orders which would justify decreeing the suits 



at interim stage. The relief granted by the learned 



Judge at the interim stage was not warranted by the 



facts of the case at all. Therefore, the impugned orders 



are also liable to be set aside on this ground.




21. Further, Order 39 Rule 1 deals with cases in 



 which temporary injunction may be granted and 



 inter alia provides that where in any suit it is 



 proved by affidavit or otherwise - (a) that any 



 property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being 



 wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the 


 36


 suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, 



 (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to 



 remove or dispose of his property with a view to 



 defrauding his creditors, (c) that the defendant 



 threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise 



 cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any 



 property in dispute in the suit, the Court may, by 



 order, grant a temporary injunction to restrain 



 such act, or make such other order for the 



 purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, 



 damaging, alienation, sale removal or disposition 



 of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or 



 otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in 



 relation to any property in dispute in the suit as 



 the Court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit 



 or until further orders.




 Order 39 Rule 2 deals with injunction to restrain 



repetition or continuance of breach and inter alia 



provides that in any suit for restraining the defendant 



from committing a breach of contract or other injury of 



any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit 


 37


or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the 



commencement of the suit and either before or after 



judgment, apply to the court for a temporary injunction 



to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of 



contract or injury complained of, or any breach of 



contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same 



contract or relating to the same property or right.




 As is well-known Section 151 deals with saving of 



inherent powers of the Court and provides that nothing 



in Civil Procedure Code shall be deemed to limit or 



otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make 



such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice 



or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.




22. It hardly needs to be emphasized that in any 



 Body governed by democratic principles, no 



 member has a right to claim an injunction so as 



 to stall the formation of the Governing Body of 



 the Association. No such right exists in election 



 matters since exercise of a right conferred by a 



 rule is always subject to the qualifications 


 38


 prescribed and limitations imposed thereunder. 



 The contention of the respondents that the 



 amendment to Rule whereunder the right to be 



 eligible to contest for any post for the Association 



 or the eligibility to cast the vote at the election, 



 takes away the right completely, is misconceived 



 since by the amendment the right is not taken 



 away but is preserved subject to certain 



 restrictions on its exercise and this could always 



 be done. 




23. It is important to notice that what the impugned 



 Rule does is that it only declares the eligibility of 



 a member to contest and vote and does not take 



 away ipso facto the right to vote. The impugned 



 Rule only prescribes the eligibility or makes a 



 person ineligible in the circumstances stated 



 therein which is the nature of a reasonable 



 restriction as the right to vote is neither a 



 common law right nor Fundamental Right but a 



 statutory right prescribed by the statute as has 



 been held in several reported decisions of this 


 39


Court. What is necessary to be noticed here is 



that the impugned clause in the Rule is not the 



only clause prescribing ineligibility to vote as 



there are other eligibility conditions or ineligibility 



restrictions within Rule 18, which may also make 



a person ineligible to vote. The challenge, 



therefore, to this ineligibility of filing a declaration 



not to vote at the elections to any other Bar 



Association is erroneous in law. If a person is the 



member of several associations of advocates and 



wants to participate in the affairs of different 



associations of which he/she is a member, 



he/she may not be in a position to be really 



involved in the affairs of all associations of which 



he/she is the member. A person who is a 



member of more than one association would form 



a different class than the person who is a member 



of only one association of lawyers, particularly, 



the association of the Court in which he/she 



regularly practices. Though an advocate can be 



member of several associations, the right to form 


 40


an association or be a member of an association 



does not necessarily include the right to vote at 



every such association's General Body Meeting or 



election meetings and the rules of the association 



can circumscribe the voting rights of members of 



such association by prescribing eligibility and 



ineligibility. It is an admitted position that SCBA 



today has temporary members who do not have a 



right to vote. Similarly, non-active members and 



associate members do not have a right to vote. 



Thus, these are all reasonable restrictions which 



have been prescribed and are not open to 



challenge as there is no Fundamental Right to 



vote. After all a Bar Association in a court is 



formed for the purpose of seeing that all lawyers 



practicing normally and regularly in that court 



work under one umbrella and be in a position to 



interact with the Judges or officials of that court 



for any grievance through their elected body 



because individual lawyers are not supposed nor 



it is proper for them to interact with the Judges 


 41


 so as to preserve and secure the independence of 



 judiciary. 




24. The argument of the respondents was that the 



 right to vote available to a member has been 



 infringed or curtailed but this argument does not 



 appear to be correct for the simple reason that 



 though the Rule is couched in a negative 



 language, it preserves the right of a Member to 



 either contest or to cast his vote in the election 



 subject to his exercising an option to vote only in 



 the SCBA and not in any High Court/District 



 Court Bar Association.




 This is amply clear from the amended provision 



whereunder every member before casting his vote, is 



required, in the prescribed form, to give a declaration 



that he has not voted in any other election of any 



advocates in the High Court/District Court Bar 



Association. The restriction on the right to vote of a 



member is provided with an avowed object of better 



welfare and convenience of those advocates, who are 


 42


regularly practicing in this Court and who are directly 



concerned with day-to-day affairs of the Supreme Court. 



Such restriction in fact subserves Article 145 of the 



Constitution and other statutory provisions relating to 



advocates. As right to vote is not an absolute right 



recognized in common law and is always subject to the 



statute/Rules creating such rights, it is equally well 



settled that the exercise of such right could always be 



subject to the provisions of the Statute/Rules creating 



it. Under the circumstances, the contention advanced 



by the respondents that their right to vote was either 



curtailed or abridged should not have been lightly 



accepted by the learned Judge.




25. The right to form an association is recognized as 


 a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(c) of the 



 Constitution. The provision in the SCBA Rules 



 for prescribing eligibility to vote at only one of the 



 associations, i.e., "One Bar One Vote" is a 



 prescription which is in furtherance of the right 



 to form association and be able to manage the 



 affairs of the association by those who regularly 


 43


practice in the courts of which the association is 



formed and of which the members are regular 



practitioners. It will not be out of place to 



mention that a person having become ineligible to 



vote because of having voted at another 



association election does not (a) lose the 



membership of the association nor (b) is in any 



way hampered or restricted in the use of other 



facilities, which the association provides to its 



members such as library, canteen, 



telecommunication, car parking, etc. Having 



regard to the aims and objects as set out in the 



Memorandum of Association, it is evident that 



one of the primary objectives of formation of the 



association was to have a Body of Advocates who 



are attached to and practicing in the Supreme 



Court of India. In Smt. Damyanti Naranga vs. 


The Union of India and others (1971) 1 SCC 


678, this Court has authoritatively laid down that 


the right to form an association necessarily 



implies that persons forming the association have 


 44


also the right to continue to be associated with 



only those whom they voluntarily admit in the 



association. In Zoroastrian Cooperative 


Housing Society Ltd. and others vs. District 


Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Urban) and 


others (2005) 5 SCC 632, in the context of 


Fundamental Right to form an association 



excluding others and the right of the Members of 



the association to keep others out, it has been 



held in para 17 at page 651 as under: -




"Section 24 of the Act, no doubt, speaks of 

open membership, but Section 24(1) makes 

it clear that open membership is the 

membership of a person duly qualified 

therefore under the provisions of the Act, 

the Rules and the bye-laws of the Society. 

In other words, Section 24(1) does not 

contemplate an open membership dehorns 

the bye-laws of the society. Nor do we find 

anything in the Act which precludes a 

society from prescribing a qualification for 

membership based on a belief, a persuasion 

or a religion for that matter. Section 30(2) 

of the Act even places restrictions on the 

right of a member to transfer his right. In 

fact, the individual right of the member, 

Respondent 2, has got submerged in the 

collective right of the Society. In State of 

U.P. v. C.O.D. Chheoki Employees' Coop. 

Society Ltd. (1997) 3 SCC 681, this Court 

after referring to Daman Singh vs. State of 


 45


 Punjab (1985) 2 SCC 670, held in para 16 

 that: (SCC p. 691)


 "16. Thus, it is settled law that no 

 citizen has a fundamental right under 

 Article 19(1)(c) to become a member of 

 a cooperative society. His right is 

 governed by the provisions of the 

 statute. So, the right to become or to 

 continue being a member of the society 

 is a statutory right. On fulfillment of 

 the qualifications prescribed to become 

 a member and for being a member of 

 the society and on admission, he 

 becomes a member. His being a 

 member of the society is subject to the 

 operation of the Act, rules and bye-

 laws applicable from time to time. A 

 member of the society has no 

 independent right qua the society and 

 it is the society that is entitled to 

 represent as the corporate aggregate. 

 No individual member is entitled to 

 assail the constitutionality of the 

 provisions of the Act, rules and the 

 bye-laws as he has his right under the 

 Act, rules and the bye-laws and is 

 subject to its operation. The stream 

 cannot rise higher than the source."





26. In matters of internal management of an 



 association, the courts normally do not interfere, 



 leaving it open to the association and its 



 members to frame a particular bye-law, rule or 



 regulation which may provide for eligibility and or 


 46


 qualification for the membership and/or 



 providing for limitations/restrictions on the 



 exercise of any right by and as a member of the 



 said association.




 It is well settled legal proposition that once a 



person becomes a member of the association, such a 



person looses his individuality qua the association and 



he has no individual rights except those given to him by 



the rules and regulations and/or bye-laws of the 



association.




27. It should have been noticed by the learned Judge 



 that the plaintiffs/respondents claimed 



 injunction on the basis that the right to contest 



 and vote in the election of the SCBA had been 



 adversely affected and, therefore, they invoked 



 the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read 



 with Section 151 CPC. The amended Rule 18 has 



 not taken away right to vote completely but has 



 put restrictions to promote and protect the 



 privileges, interest and prestige of the SCBA. 


 47


 Rule 18 was also amended to promote and 



 maintain high standards of profession amongst 



 Members of the Bar. Having regard to the objects 



 of amendment of Rule 18, this Court is of the 



 opinion that the learned Judge should not have 



 granted the injunction as claimed by the 



 plaintiffs/respondents for mere asking.




28. Originally enacted Rule 18 provided for eligibility 



 of members to contest and vote at/in the 



 elections. An important provision is contained in 



 Rule 18(II)(4) to the effect that non-active 



 members and associate members shall not have 



 the right to vote. In light of the above provisions 



 of the Rules, more particularly, Rule 5(1)(v), the 



 eligibility of every advocate entitled to practice law 



 for being a member of the Supreme Court Bar 



 Association is subject to the provisions of the said 



 Rules. In other words, an absolute right as is 



 sought to be asserted by the 



 plaintiffs/respondents is controlled by conditions, 


 48


 qualifications, disqualifications and restrictions 



 imposed by the said Rules.




29. The power to amend Rules is specifically 


 conferred under Rule 39 whereunder it is 



 provided that the Rules and the bye-laws of the 



 Association shall be subject to such conditions 



 and/or modifications, as may from time to time, 



 by resolution passed by at least 2/3rd of the 



 Members present and voting at the General Body 



 Meeting. Therefore, any part of the Rules could 



 always be amended. As noticed earlier, SCBA 



 being a Society registered under the Societies 



 Registration Act, is governed by its Memorandum 



 of Association. The said Association is entitled to 



 have its own Rules and Regulations. In fact, it is 



 contemplated in the Act that a Committee of 



 management can be constituted to manage the 



 affairs of the Society as specified in the Rules and 



 Regulations. The Memorandum of Association is 



 a contract amongst the members of the Society, 



 which though required to be registered under the 


 49


 Statute, does not acquire any statutory character. 



 These are rules which govern internal control and 



 management of the Society. The authority to 



 frame, amend, vary and rescind such rules, 



 undoubtedly, vests in the General Body of the 



 Members of the Society. The power to amend the 



 rules is implicit in the power to frame rules. 




30. Yet, another ground of attack in the suits filed by 



 the respondents is with reference to notice of 



 meetings and the manner of holding of meetings 



 including Special General Meeting. The record 



 produced by the SCBA before this Court indicates 



 that the meeting in which the amendment was 



 carried out in Rule 18 was held in accordance 



 with Rule 22 because it was a Special General 



 Meeting. The holding of meetings including 



 Special General Meeting is governed by Rules 21, 



 22 and 23, which read as under: -




 "21. MEETINGS


 The Annual General Meeting of the 

 Association shall ordinarily be held not later 

 than 15th day of May every year. Not less 


 50


than 15 days notice shall be given to the 

members of the Annual General Meeting. 

The following shall along with other 

business that may be required to be 

transacted, be included in the agenda of the 

Annual General Meeting.


a) Auditor's Report on the Account and 

 Balance Sheet of Budget estimate;


b) Report of the Secretary on the activities of 

 the terms which will include report of the 

 work of committee other than the 

 Executive Committee;


c) The election of the officers of the 

 Association and Members of Executive 

 Committee or other committees and 

 appointment of Auditors;


d) The approval of the revenue account and 

 the balance sheet of the affairs of the 

 Association as on 31st March of the 

 previous year duly passed.





22. SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING


 The Committee may call a General Meeting 

on 7 days notice to the Members provided 

that a Special General Meeting may be 

called on a shorter notice.


 Provided that the Secretary may call an 

emergent General Meeting on any day by 

affixing a notice to that effect on the notice 

board of the Association and circulating the 

same to the Members as can be 

conveniently informed.


 The Committee shall call a General 

Meeting or a Special General Meeting upon 


 51


the requisition given in writing by at least 

150 Members of the Association in respect 

of any matter. The requisition specified the 

matter or question to be laid before the 

meeting and shall be addressed to the 

Secretary. The meeting shall be called not 

later than 2 weeks after the receipt of such 

requisition. The quorum at the Annual 

General Meeting or a General Meeting or a 

Special General Meeting shall be 50 

Members. In absence of such quorum the 

meeting shall stand adjourned to such a 

date and time as the Chairman may appoint 

and for such adjourn meeting no quorum 

will be necessary.


23. NOTICE OF MEETING


1. The notice of the Annual General 

Meeting or any of the Special Meeting shall 

be given by: -


(a) Circulating the notice, to such 

 members as can conveniently be 

 informed in that way;


(b) Sending out such notices by post 

 addressed to every non-resident and 

 associate member and to every 

 resident member who may have 

 required the Secretary to send the 

 notice in this way and has registered 

 his address in the office of the 

 Association;


The notice of the meeting other than the 

Annual General Meeting shall be given by:


(a) Affixing the notice on the notice board of 

 the Association;


(b) Circulating the notice to such members 

 as may be conveniently informed in that 

 way."


 52




As can be seen from the bare reading of these Rules, 



notice by post has to go to non-resident members and to 



resident members only if request in writing is made to 



the Secretary that notices should be sent to him by post 



at his registered address, otherwise, notice by affixation 



on notice board and by circulating the notice, normally 



done with cause list is sufficient notice. The record does 



not indicate at all that any of the plaintiffs/respondents 



had given any notice to the Secretary of SCBA that he 



should be informed individually by a notice in writing of 



holding of any meeting by sending it at his registered 



address. There is weighty reason as to why notice by 



affixation on the notice board and by circulating the 



notice with cause list should be regarded as sufficient 



notice. This is obviously so because advocate members 



normally practicing in this Court would be made aware 



by these methods of notice. Thus the ground of 



improper holding of the meeting or lack of service of 



notice upon the plaintiffs/respondents are devoid of 


 53


merits and could not have been taken into consideration 



while granting injunction claimed by them.




31. On page 2 of the paper book the learned trial 



 judge has mentioned details of the plaint and has 



 categorically stated as under: -




 "It is disclosed in the plaint that members of 

 defendant No. 1 are scattered in various 

 parts of the country including Delhi and 

 majority of them do not visit the SCBA office 

 on regular basis."





In para 3 of the plaint it is averred as under: -




 "Since all the members including the 

 plaintiff do not visit the Supreme Court and 

 office of the defendant No. 1 Association on 

 regular basis, they do not have an occasion 

 to acquaint themselves about all the notices 

 and circulars put up by the defendant No. 1 

 Association on its notice boards in the 

 Supreme Court building."





Further, at page 19 of the paper book a finding has been 



arrived at by the trial court as under: -




 "Most of the members do not ordinarily 

 practice in the Supreme Court of India and 

 are members of other association."


 54


In the light of above pleadings, it is quite clear that the 



plaintiffs/respondents who were seeking to challenge 



the impugned Rule which prescribed an eligibility clause 



to enable them to vote, have candidly admitted that they 



are not regular practitioners of the Supreme Court nor 



do they attend the Supreme Court on regular basis nor 



are aware of the circulars circulated by the SCBA or 



pasted on the information board of the SCBA. This is 



something which has been totally overlooked by the trial 



court in arriving at a conclusion in favour of the 



plaintiffs/respondents without examining the true and 



correct import of Rule 23 of the Rules, which prescribes 



the method of giving notice of the meeting. There is no 



manner of doubt that the trial court has committed an 



error in coming to the conclusion that in any case 



individual notice was required to be given when the rule 



does not warrant giving of any such individual notice. 




32. The three reasons indicated by the learned Judge 



 in the impugned orders for grant of injunction are 



 not sustainable at all and, therefore, the 



 impugned orders will have to be set aside.


 55


33. Further, the appellants had rightly pointed out to 



 the learned Judge that election process had 



 already started and, therefore, injunction, as 



 claimed, should not be granted. Since 1952 this 



 Court has authoritatively laid down that once 



 election process has started the courts should not 



 ordinarily interfere with the said process by way 



 of granting injunction. The argument advanced 



 by the appellants that election process having 



 started, the injunction should not be granted is 



 dealt with by the learned Judge by holding that in 



 the present case the plaintiffs have not prayed for 



 injunction against the election process. This 



 Court has no doubt at all that the injunction 



 granted by the learned Judge has propensity to 



 intervene and interfere with election process 



 which had already started. Apart from the 



 prayers claimed in the applications filed under 



 Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 



 CPC the Court could not have ignored the effect 



 of granting an injunction. If the injunction 


 56


 granted by the learned Judge had not been 



 stayed by this Court, the office bearers of the 



 SCBA would have been required to prepare a new 



 voters list as if unamended Rule 18 was in 



 operation and the exercise undertaken by them 



 for preparing voters list in the light of the 



 amended Rule 18 would have been of no 



 consequence. Thus the injunction claimed by the 



 plaintiffs/respondents which had very wide 



 repercussions on the elections, which were to be 



 held in the year 2003, should not have been 



 granted by the learned Judge.




34. The impugned order is also liable to be set aside 



 on yet another ground. Though the suits were 



 not filed in a representative capacity, the 



 injunction is granted by the court restraining the 



 appellants from implementing the resolution 



 dated February 18, 2003 in respect of all 



 advocates and not in respect of two advocates 



 only who have filed Civil Suit Nos. 100 of 2003 



 and 101 of 2003 respectively. A perusal of the 


 57


 plaint in the two suits makes it more than clear 



 that suits are not filed in a representative 



 capacity. In the plaint, individual rights to vote 



 at the election of the Executive Committee of 



 SCBA is claimed. Even if extremely good case 



 was made out by the plaintiffs/respondents of the 



 two suits, the relief could have been confined only 



 to the two plaintiffs/respondents and a relief 



 granting blanket injunction restraining the 



 appellants from implementing the Resolution 



 dated February 18, 2003 amending Rule 18 of the 



 Rules and Regulations of SCBA till the final 



 disposal of the suits could not have been granted.




35. For all these reasons impugned common order is 



 liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside.




36. Mr. K.K.Venugopal, an august and well-known 



 senior lawyer, who is regularly practicing in this 



 Court since years and was also former President 



 of SCBA at least for three years and who was also 



 Chairman, Interim Board of Management in 2010 


 58


when the Executive Committee of the SCBA had 



dissolved itself and appointed the Interim Board 



of Management, submitted that the statements of 



aims and objectives of the SCBA, among others, 



includes the objective, viz., "to promote and 



protect the privileges, interest and prestige of the 



association and to promote union and 



cooperation among the advocates practicing in 



the court and other association and advocates". 



According to the learned counsel, the phrase "to 



promote union and cooperation among the 



advocates practicing in the court and other 



association and advocate" is to promote union 



and cooperation among the advocates practicing 



in the Supreme Court, on the one hand, and 



other advocates or associations of advocates, on 



the other, which itself indicates that SCBA exists 



for the advocates practicing "in the court", i.e., 



Supreme Court of India. The learned counsel 



explained that SCBA exists for the benefit of the 



advocates in the Supreme Court of India and 


 59


SCBA owes a fiduciary duty to such advocates 



and members of the SCBA for protecting their 



privileges, interests and prestige. The learned 



counsel asserted that the SCBA is, therefore, 



entitled to seek the protection of the Court by 



invoking Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure 



that the members practicing in the Supreme 



Court are not rendered incapable of enjoying, to 



the full, the privileges and benefits in the 



Supreme Court of India, which has provided 



infrastructure and facilities in the nature of 



libraries, car parking, chambers, canteens, 



lounges, etc. The learned counsel pointed out 



that the factual situation, which has been placed 



before the Court, would establish that today the 



membership of the SCBA has risen to an mind-



boggling figure of around 10,000, of which only 



around 2,000 members are regularly practicing in 



this Court. Informing the Court the learned 



counsel mentioned that historically, with the 



advocates regularly practicing in the Supreme 


 60


Court being inducted as members of the SCBA, 



the facilities made available by this Court to the 



members were sufficient for their use, but certain 



unhealthy practices and vices started creeping in 



to the system of elections to the various 



posts/offices of the SCBA by reason of the fact 



that the office of the President of SCBA carried a 



vast prestige and status, not merely among 



lawyers but also among Governments and the 



political class. It was also stated by the learned 



counsel that being an office bearer of a member of 



the Executive Committee of the SCBA also carried 



great importance and prestige. According to the 



learned counsel, the main vice that crept into the 



system, for the last decade or so was that 



aspiring office bearers started buying the 



application forms for membership, in bulk, and 



paying the membership fee for lawyers from the 



various places like Meerut, Rohtak, Saharanpur, 



Ghaziabad and even as far away a place as 



Chandigarh. The learned counsel Shri Venugopal 


 61


claimed as Chairman of the Interim Board of 



Management that one came across as many as 



100 subscription forms, paid with consecutive 



bank draft numbers, as disclosed by the bank 



statements obtained by the Interim Board of 



Management, which showed that a single sponsor 



had paid vast sums of money for each of these 



forms and memberships, the membership fee 



being Rs.5,150/- for advocates with ten years 



standing and Rs.3,650/- for advocates with less 



than ten years standing. It was emphasized by 



the learned counsel that practices like these have 



resulted in the present strength of the SCBA 



being around 10,000 and it is a well known fact 



among the members of the Bar regularly 



practicing in the Supreme Court of India that 



persons inducted into the SCBA through such 



means, numbering about 8,000, are seen in the 



Supreme Court premises only on the day of SCBA 



elections for casting their votes, otherwise, these 



persons have no interest whatsoever either in the 


 62


functioning of the SCBA or the well being of its 



members or the functioning of the Supreme Court 



of India, as a Court. The learned counsel has 



produced minutes of the meeting of the Interim 



Board of Management dated March 22, 2010 



along with his written submissions for perusal of 



the Court. The learned senior counsel lamented 



that all these would disclose the disgraceful 



condition to which SCBA has been reduced on 



account of machinations and malpractices of 



certain members of the SCBA, who are aspiring 



for offices in the Executive Committee of the 



SCBA. The learned counsel has also appended 



copies of Allotment of Lawyers' Chambers Rules 



as amended up to November 30, 2007 as well as 



letter dated August 10, 2004 inter alia 



prescribing eligibility to apply for allotment of 



chambers along with his written submissions. 



The learned counsel has pointed out that the 



SCBA is facing a crises today, because of the 



induction of the vast number of members who do 


 63


not practice regularly in the Supreme Court of 



India and, therefore, have no interest whatsoever 



in the function of the Apex Court or in the 



reputation, prestige and well being of the SCBA 



whereas, on the other hand, the sole objective of 



such persons is to ensure that their respective 



sponsor(s), who paid their subscription and 



entrance fee, would be elected to one of the posts 



of the SCBA, including the post of SCBA 



President. The learned counsel has expressed 



apprehension that the day may not be far of when 



the entire set of office bearers of the SCBA may be 



persons with no regular practice in the Supreme 



Court of India and who may have their regular 



practice in other courts in Delhi or even in the 



adjoining towns or even in a city as far away from 



Delhi as Chandigarh. The learned counsel 



argued that the SCBA has to shoulder great 



responsibility in regard to the effective 



functioning of the Supreme Court itself, the 



dispensation of justice and to represent the 


 64


regular practicing members of the Bar from time 



to time. According to the learned counsel the 



present situation, which virtually renders the 



regularly practicing members strangers in their 



own court can only be remedied if this Court were 



to step in, to exercise its vast powers under 



Article 142 of the Constitution, to ensure that the 



functioning of the Court itself is not affected by 



reason of the huge influx, into the SCBA, of 



advocates who have no interest in the functioning 



of the Supreme Court, its Bar or its association. 



The learned counsel asserted that the 



circumstances prevailing are such that it is 



imperative for the well being of the institution, as 



well as Apex Court of the country itself, and its 



regularly practicing members to ensure that it is 



only the regularly practicing members who will be 



eligible to cast votes at the SCBA elections. For 



this purpose the learned counsel has suggested 



that it is essential that the right to vote in the 



SCBA elections is restricted to the categories of 


 65


 persons enumerated in the Interim Board of 



 Management circular dated March 22, 2010, the 



 relevant portion whereof has been extracted in 



 the written submissions.




 Mr. P.P.Rao, learned celebrated senior counsel 



regularly practicing in this Court since long and who is 



also former President of SCBA, has emphasized that the 



very name of Bar Association, viz., SCBA necessarily 



means and implies that it is an association representing 



members regularly practicing in the court and 



responsible for proper conduct of its members in the 



court and for ensuring proper assistance to the court. 



The learned counsel has, in his written submissions, 



mentioned that SCBA needs to be salvaged from the 



deluge of overwhelming numbers of outside advocates 



practicing not only in the NCTR but even all other 



States in North India who had been enrolled by short-



sighted candidates with an eye on their election to the 



SCBA. The learned counsel has asserted that unless 



this Court comes to the rescue of SCBA, the association 



will cease to be a court annexed Bar Association and 


 66


words "Supreme Court" will have to be dropped and 



substituted by the words "North India". Emphasizing 



that the character of the SCBA should not be allowed to 



be diluted in any circumstances, the learned counsel 



has asserted that this is a fit case for exercise of powers 



under Article 142 of the Constitution. The learned 



counsel Mr. P.P. Rao has suggested that to identify 



regular practitioners 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 at pages 465-467 para 7, may be 


adopted or in the alternative criteria mentioned in the 



circular dated March 22, 2010 issued by the Interim 



Board of Management of the SCBA consisting of M/s. 



K.K. Venugopal, Chairman, Mr. P.P. Rao, Vice Chairman 



and Mr. P.H. Parekh, Member - Executive and Convener 



may be considered for acceptance mutatis mutandis.




 Mr. Ranjit Kumar, a distinguished attorney of 



this Court, who is appointed as amicus curie in this 



matter to assist the Court, Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, 



learned President, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record 


 67


Association, Mr. D.K.Garg, learned Counsel for the 



respondent and who was also in past President of 



Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association, 



pointed out to this Court the difficulties being faced by 



regular members of the SCBA because of enlistment of 



large number non-regular advocates as members of 



SCBA, who according to them, now constitute a majority 



as a result of which the SCBA has not been able to take 



any decision which would be in the interest of the Bar. 



The learned Counsel have stated in their written 



submissions filed, to supplement their oral arguments, 



that there are more than ten thousand members of 



SCBA out of which only two thousand advocates are 



regular members who actually practice in this Court 



and eight thousand non-regular members have taken 



over the affairs of the SCBA in such a manner that it is 



almost impossible for the regular members to transact 



any business in the general or special meetings of 



SCBA. The learned Counsel emphasized that yearly 



subscription for members of SCBA for many decades 



remained fixed at a paltry amount of Rs. 500/- and 


 68


every time when a proposal was made to increase the 



subscription the same was rejected by the General Body 



dominated by these non-regular members and that only 



recently with great difficulty the subscription has been 



revised to Rs. 1500/- by secret ballot held within high 



security area of Supreme Court namely Library 1, but 



now there is a demand to reduce it again to Rs. 500/-. 



The learned Counsel pointed out that if the subscription 



for members of SCBA is again revised and reduced to 



Rs.500/-, it will be a boon not only for such non-regular 



members but also a boon for the candidates contesting 



elections who will have to shell out less, for enrolling 



those advocates who are not practicing regularly in this 



Court, to secure their votes and get elected. It was 



emphasized that the enhanced subscription is in the 



interest of association as it would not only improve 



financial position of SCBA but also help to keep at bay 



those members who are not regularly practicing in this 



Court. The learned Counsel argued that this Court 



provides to the members of SCBA, who are regularly 



practicing in this Court, several facilities/benefits such 


 69


as bar rooms, libraries, canteens, parking place, clinics, 



rest rooms etc., and as SCBA is intrinsically and 



inextricably connected with the working of the Supreme 



Court, this Court should give appropriate directions for 



effective implementation of "One Bar One Vote" concept 



introduced by the amended rule in exercise of its powers 



under Articles 136, 142 and 145(1) (a) of the 



Constitution to relieve the SCBA of the number of 



maladies which have now come to be associated with it 



and to improve the working of the institution as a 



whole. What was stressed by all the learned Counsel 



was that it is not in the interest of SCBA that advocates 



who do not practice in this Court regularly, vote for or 



get elected to the Executive Committee of SCBA, but in 



past, several members who were themselves not 



regularly practicing in the Supreme Court had contested 



elections for different posts of Executive Committee of 



SCBA though they were already members of the 



Executive Committees of other Court annexed Bar 



Associations and had come out successful on the 



strength of votes of such non-regular members who are 


 70


to be seen in the Court compound only on the date of 



elections. The learned Counsel mentioned that persons 



so elected do not participate in the functioning of SCBA 



since they are not affected by the working or non-



working of the SCBA which has affected the functioning 



of SCBA as a facilitator in the administration of justice 



and therefore in order to maintain purity and dignity of 



the profession this Court has not only power but duty to 



give directions under Article 136 and Article 142 



particularly when request is made by the learned 



amicus curie, SCBA represented by its Honorary 



Secretary, President of Supreme Court Advocates-on-



Record Association and other high-ranking lawyers like 



Shri K.K.Venugopal, Shri P.P.Rao etc., who are regularly 



practicing only in this Court. Mr. D.K.Garg, the learned 



Counsel who represents respondent Mr. B.D.Kaushik in 



C.A. No. 3401 of 2003, frankly pointed out to this Court 



as an officer of the Court that in spite of other effective 



alternative remedies available to the appellant SCBA 



against the interim order dated April 5,2003 passed by 



the learned Civil Judge, Delhi, this Court had not only 


 71


entertained Special Leave Petition filed by SCBA, but 



also granted stay because this Court wanted to regulate, 



reform and improve the functioning of SCBA and to 



prevent the misuse of various facilities provided by this 



Court to the regular members of SCBA so that the 



members of the SCBA render best assistance to this 



Court in dispensation of justice. It was also submitted 



that SLP was entertained and operation of the impugned 



interim order was stayed by this Court to prevent the 



interference of the outside members in day-to-day 



functioning of SCBA and therefore this Court should 



give directions/frame guidelines to regulate, reform and 



improve the functioning of SCBA. The learned Counsel 



pointed out that it is no secret that yearly membership 



subscription fee of almost all these non-regular 



members is paid by candidates contesting election for 



the various posts of the Executive Committee of SCBA 



and the records of SCBA show that hundreds of bank 



drafts were issued by the same branch of the same bank 



in favour of SCBA for the same amount towards 



subscription of SCBA for such non-regular members 


 72


and that some interested persons who seek votes of 



these non-regular members in the elections had paid 



the subscription. This last argument of Mr. D.K.Garg 



was endorsed by one and all learned advocates who are 



appearing in the matter. Thus, the learned advocates 



have urged this Court to give guidelines/directions for 



effective implementation of amended rule which projects 



the principle of "One Bar One Vote".




 37. This Court has considered the request made by 


 the learned Counsel appearing in the matter to 



 give appropriate directions/guidelines for 



 effective implementation of "One Bar One Vote" 



 principle enunciated by the amended rule. It is 



 a matter of common knowledge that this Court 



 has provided four huge libraries, three canteens, 



 two lounges, several rooms to be used as 



 consultation rooms where learned advocates 



 regularly practicing in this Court can consult 



 with their clients, arbitration rooms, advocate's 



 chambers, huge parking places, free use of 



 electricity supply etc., to the members of the 


 73


SCBA. It is not in dispute that there are about 



ten thousand members of SCBA at present 



though the actual number of 



advocates/practitioners, who are regularly 



practicing in this Court is not more than two 



thousand five hundred out of which there are 



about nine hundred Advocates-on-Record. It is 



an accepted fact that on the eve of annual 



elections of the Executive Committee of SCBA, 



nearly more than three thousand voters turn up 



from all over India to come to the premises of 



this Court, who are made to vote by the 



advocates seeking elections for various posts. 



Further, enlistment of large number of non-



regular members as members of the SCBA have 



created problems in allotment of chambers for 



this Court and it has been found that large 



number of non-regular members of SCBA eats 



up the quota of regular members who genuinely 



need the chambers. It was pointed by Shri 



Sushil Kumar Jain, the learned President of 


 74


Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record 



Association that many of the non-regular 



members who are allotted chambers are not 



even residing in or around Delhi. The Supreme 



Court Advocates-on-Record are advocates 



primarily practicing in the Supreme Court and 



are directly affected by the functioning of SCBA 



primary object of which is to look after the 



interest of advocates actually practicing in the 



Supreme Court. There is no manner of doubt 



that Advocates-on-Record form an important 



constituent of the SCBA. All members of the 



Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record 



Association are also members of the SCBA and 



because of malpractices committed by the 



candidates who contest the elections a large 



number of advocates who are not regular 



practitioners in the Supreme Court have become 



members of SCBA and claim a right, not only to 



vote and elect the office bearers of the 



Association but also seek to be elected as office 


 75


bearers themselves on the strength and support 



of such non-regular members. Because such 



non-regular members have become members of 



SCBA, they claim facilities which are being 



extended to members of SCBA, who are 



regularly practicing in this Court. Because of 



such claims, clashes, had taken place in the 



past. It has been pointed out by Mr. Sushil 



Kumar Jain, learned President of Supreme 



Court Advocates-on-Record Association that by 



merely becoming members of the SCBA some 



advocates deem themselves to be advocates of 



the Supreme Court and fleece litigants on that 



basis. According to Shri Sushil Kumar Jain 



such advocates call themselves as Supreme 



Court Advocates and write/mention such a 



status on their letter heads, visiting cards, name 



plates, etc. misleading the litigants. As rightly 



pointed out by the learned counsel Mr. P.P. Rao, 



enrolment of advocates not practicing regularly 



in the Supreme Court is inconsistent with the 


 76


 main aim and object of the SCBA, no court can 



 provide chambers or other facilities for such 



 outside advocates, who are not regular 



 practitioners. Neither the SCBA nor the court 



 can deal with them effectively if they commit any 



 wrong. The power of this Court to make certain 



 rules, regulations and give directions to fill up 



 the vacuum till such time appropriate steps in 



 order to cover the gap are taken, is recognized 



 and upheld in several reported decisions of this 



 Court. In Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India 


 (1998) 1 SCC 226 this Court has observed as 


 under in Paragraph 51 of the reported decision:-




"In exercise of the powers of this Court 

under Article 32 read with Article 142, 

guidelines and directions have been issued 

in a large number of cases and a brief 

reference to a few of them is sufficient. In 

Erach Sam Kanga Etc. Vs, Union of India, 

(Writ Petition No. 2632 of 1978 decided on 

20th March, 1979) the Constitution Bench 

laid down certain guidelines relating to 

Emigration Act. In Lakshmi Kant Pandey 

Vs. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 244, (in re: 

Foreign Adoption), guidelines for adoption of 

minor children by foreigners were laid down. 

Similarly in State of West Bengal and Ors. 

Etc. Vs. Sampat Lal and Ors. Etc., (1985) 1 


 77


 SCC 317, K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India 

 and Others, (1991) 3 SCC 655, Union 

 Carbide Corporation and Others Vs. Union of 

 India and others, (1991) 4 SCC 584, Delhi 

 Judicial Service Association Etc. Vs. State of 

 Gujarat and others Etc. (Nadiad Case), 

 (1991) 4 SCC 406, Delhi Development 

 Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Co. (P) 

 Ltd. and Another, (1996) 4 SCC 622 and 

 Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Others Vs. Union of 

 India and others [1997] 4 SCC 306, 

 guidelines were laid down having the effect 

 of law, requiring rigid compliance. In 

 Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record 

 Association and Others Vs. Union of India 

 (IInd Judges case), (1993) 4 SCC 441, a 

 Nine-Judge Bench laid down guidelines and 

 norms for the appointment and transfer of 

 Judges which are being rigidly followed in 

 the matter of appointments of High Court 

 and Supreme Court Judges and transfer of 

 High Court Judges. More recently in 

 Vishakha and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan 

 and others, (1997) 6 SCC 241, elaborate 

 guidelines have been laid down for 

 observance in work places relating to sexual 

 harassment of working women."





Moreover, this Court, has framed Supreme Court Rules, 



1966 in exercise of powers under Article 145(1)(a) of the 



Constitution regulating amongst other things advocates 



who are entitled to practice in this Court. Further, 



necessary directions/guidelines can always be issued 



when facilities and privileges are conferred on the 


 78


members of the SCBA. Thus not only power to give 



necessary guidelines/directions is available under 



Articles 136, 142, 145(1)(a) of the Constitution but such 



power can also be exercised as "Grantor" of the benefits 



and privileges which are enjoyed by the members of the 



SCBA to restore its dignity. Having regard to the over 



all conditions prevailing in SCBA, this Court proposes 



to give appropriate directions for implementation of the 



amended rule which projects the principle of "One Bar 



One Vote".




38. Having given thoughtful consideration to the 


 suggestions made by the learned counsel 



 appearing in the matter, this Court is of the 



 opinion that to identify regular practitioners the 



 criteria adopted by this Court for allotment of 



 chambers, as explained in Vinay Balchandra 


 Joshi Vs. Registrar General of Supreme Court 


 of India (1998) 7 SCC 461 at pages 465-467 


 para 7, should be directed to be adopted by SCBA 



 from time to time. Shri K.K. Venugopal, the 



 learned senior counsel has annexed a copy of 


 79


Allotment of Lawyers' Chambers Rules, as 



amended up to November 30, 2007, with his 



written submissions, wherein detailed procedure 



for allotment of chambers and conditions 



precedent to be satisfied before a chamber is 



allotted, are laid down. Under the circumstances 



this Court directs under Article 136 of the 



Constitution read with Article 142 of the 



Constitution that criteria adopted by this Court 



for allotment of chambers, as mentioned in 



Allotment of Lawyers' Chambers Rules, and as 



explained in Vinay Balchandra Joshi (supra) 



shall be adopted by the SCBA and its office 



bearers to identify regular practitioners in this 



Court. To identify regular practitioners in this 



Court, it would be open to the office bearers of 



SCBA or a small committee, which may be 



appointed by the SCBA consisting of three senior 



advocates, to collect information about those 



members who had contested election in any of 



the Court annexed Bar Association, viz., High 


 80


Court Bar Association, District Court Bar 



Association, Taluka Bar Association, Tribunal 



Bar Association and Quasi-judicial Bar 



Associations like BIFR, AIFR, CAT, etc. from 2005 



to 2010. If such an information is sought by the 



office bearers of SCBA or the Committee 



appointed by it, the same shall be supplied 



invariably and without fail by the Court annexed 



Bar Associations mentioned earlier. The 



committee of SCBA to be appointed is hereby 



directed to prepare a list of regular members 



practicing in this Court and another separate list 



of members not regularly practicing in this Court 



and third list of temporary members of the SCBA. 



These lists are directed to be put up on the SCBA 



website and also on the SCBA notice board. A 



letter is directed to be sent by the SCBA to each 



member of SCBA informing him about his status 



of membership on or before February 28, 2012. 



The aggrieved member would be entitled to make 



a representation within 15 days from the date of 


 81


 receipt of letter from the S.C.B.A. to the 



 Committee, which is to be appointed by the SCBA 



 to identify regular practitioners stating in writing, 



 whether personal hearing before the Committee is 



 required or not. If such a request is made the 



 concerned member shall be heard by the 



 Committee. The representation/s shall be 



 considered and the decision would be rendered 



 thereon by the aforesaid Committee on or before 



 April 30, 2012. The decision of that Committee 



 shall be communicated to the member concerned 



 but the decision shall be final, conclusive and 



 binding on the member of the SCBA. Thereafter, 



 final list of regular practitioners of this Court 



 shall be displayed by S.C.B.A.




 After preparation of the final list of the regular 



practitioners, each member shall give a written 



intimation to the S.C.B.A. whether he is a member of 



another Court annexed Bar. It shall be mandatory for a 



member, whose name is included in the said list, to give 



a permanent declaration that he would vote only in the 


 82


SCBA and would not vote in any of the elections of any 



High Court Bar Association or District Bar Association 



or Taluka Bar Association or Tribunal Bar Association 



or Quasi-judicial Bar Associations like BIFR, AIFR, CAT, 



etc. A copy of this declaration shall be put 



up/displayed on the website of the SCBA as well as on 



the notice board of the SCBA. The information about 



having filed such a declaration shall be sent to all the 



Bar Associations where the said advocate is a member. 



Once such a declaration has been given, it will be valid 



till it is revoked and once it is revoked a member shall 



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. 




39. The members of the SCBA, whose names do not 



 figure in the final list of regular practitioners, 



 shall not be entitled to either 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 S.C.B.A.


 83


40. This Court suggests that to ensure strict 



 compliance with the directions issued by this 



 judgment, an Implementation Committee 



 consisting of three learned senior advocates may 



 be constituted. The SCBA has suggested that 



 Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior advocate, Mr. 



 P.P. Rao, learned senior advocate and Mr. Ranjit 



 Kumar, learned senior advocate, practicing in 



 this Court be appointed as members of the said 



 Implementation Committee. This Court 



 recommends that the names of three learned 



 senior counsel mentioned above be considered by 



 the SCBA for being appointed as members of the 



 said Committee subject to their consent and 



 convenience.




41. In view of the findings that the amendment made 



 in Rule 18 is legal and valid and that no right of 



 the advocates, who have filed the suits, is 



 infringed or is violated, this Court directs the trial 



 court to take up the two suits immediately for 



 hearing and to dismiss/ dispose of the two suits 


 84


 pending on its file in the light of the observations 



 made by this Court in this judgment.




42. Subject to above mentioned directions, the two 



 appeals stand disposed of. 





 ....................................J.

 (J.M. PANCHAL)





 .....................................J.

 (H.L. GOKHALE)

New Delhi;

September 26, 2011.

About these ads

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 470,972 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 468 other followers

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 468 other followers