SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS v. B.D. KAUSHIK

SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 785 B.D. KAUSHIK [J.M. PANCHAL, J.] 1, but now there is a demand to reduce it again to Rs. 500/-. A 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 B 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 c learned Counsel argued that this Court provides to the members of SCBA, who are regularly practicing in this Court, several facilities/benefits such as bar rooms, libraries, canteens, parking place, clinics, rest rooms etc., and as SCBA is intrinsically and inextricably connected with the working of the 0 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 to be seen in the Court compound only on the date of elections. The teamed 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 H

786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 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 B 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 c 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 th~ learned Civil Judge, Delhi, this Court had not only entertained Special Leave Petition filed by SCBA, but also granted stay ·because this Court wanted to regulate, reform and improve the 0 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 G for the same amount towards subscription of GCBA for such non-regular members and that some interest:'d 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

SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 787 B.D. KAUSHIK [J.M. PANCHAL, J.] Court to give guidelines/directions for effective implementation of amended rule which projects the principle of "One Bar One Vote".

37Copy pinpoint37. 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 SCBA. It is not in dispute that there are about ten thousand members of SCBA at present thoi.igh 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 Sushi! Kumar Jain, the learned President of 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 G 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 H

788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 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 B 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 bearers themselves on the strength and support of such non-regular members. Because such non-regular members have become c 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 0 some advocates deem themselves to be advocates of the Supreme Court and fleece litigants on that basis. Accor1ing to Shri Sushi! Kumar Jain such advocates call themselves as Supreme Court Advocates and write/mention such a status on E 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 main aim and object of the SCBA, no court can provide chambers or other facilities for such outside advocates, who are not regular practitioners. F 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 G 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:-

"ln exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 32 H read with Article 142, guidelines and directions have been

SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 789 B.D. KAUSHIK [J.M. PANCHAL, J.) 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 SCC 317, K. Veeraswami Vs. Union of India and Others, (1991) 3 SCC 655, Union Carbide C 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 0 of India and others (1997) 4 sec 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 (/Ind Judges case), (1993) 4 SCC 441, a Nine-Judge Bench laid down . E 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, F (1997) 6 sec 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, G 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 members of the SCBA. Thus not only H

790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 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".

38Copy pinpoint38. 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 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 Court Bar Association, District Court Bar Association, Taluka Bar Association, Tribunal Bar Association and Quasi-judicial Bar Associations like BIFR, H AIFR, CAT, etc. from 2005 to 2010. If such an information is

SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 791 B.D. KAUSHIK [J.M. PANCHAL, J.] sought by the office bearers of SCBA or the Committee A appointed by it, the same shall be supplied invariably and withoLJtfail 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 B 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, c ·

2012. The aggrieved member would be entitled to make a representation within 15 days from the date of receipt of letter from the S.C.8.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 0 . 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 SCBA and would not vote in any of the elections of any G 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 H

792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.

A 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 B conducted by the SCBA, for a period of three years from the date of revocation.

39Copy pinpoint39. 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 C or to contest any of the posts for which elections would be held by the S.C.B.A.

40Copy pinpoint40. This Court suggests that to ensure strict compliance with the directions issued by this judgment, an Implementation 0 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 E 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.

41Copy pinpoint41. 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 pending on G its file in the light of the observations made by this Court in this judgment.

42Copy pinpoint42. Subject to above mentioned directions, the two appeals stand disposed of.

H B.B.B. Appeals disposed of.