{"id":105371,"date":"2011-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011"},"modified":"2018-01-05T19:26:57","modified_gmt":"2018-01-05T13:56:57","slug":"supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Bar Association & … vs B.D. Kaushik on 26 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Supreme Court Bar Association & … vs B.D. Kaushik on 26 September, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: J.M. Panchal, H.L. Gokhale<\/div>\n
                                                                  Reportable\n\n\n\n           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA\n\n\n\n             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n            CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3401 OF 2003\n\n\n\n\nSupreme Court Bar Association\n\nand others                                         ... Appellants\n\n\n                              Versus\n\n\nB.D. Kaushik                                        ... Respondent\n\n\n\n\n                              WITH\n\n\n            CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3402 OF 2003\n\n\nSupreme Court Bar Association                      ... Appellant\n\n\n                              Versus\n\n\nA.K. Manchanda                                      ... Respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
J.M. Panchal, J.\n<\/p>\n
      Since   common   issues   for   determination   are <\/p>\n
involved   in   Civil   Appeal   No.   3401   of   2003   and   Civil <\/p>\n
                                                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
Appeal   No.   3402   of   2003,   this   Court   proposes   to <\/p>\n
dispose them of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
2.      Civil   Appeal   No.   3401   of   2003   is   filed   by   three <\/p>\n
appellants,   i.e.,   (1)   Supreme   Court   Bar   Association <\/p>\n
(Registered), through its Honorary Secretary Mr. Ashok <\/p>\n
Arora,   (2)   Shri   Ashok   Arora,   Honorary   Secretary   of <\/p>\n
Supreme Court Bar Association and (3) Ms. Sunita B.\n<\/p>\n
Rao,         Coordinator,          Implementation             Committee, <\/p>\n
Supreme   Court   Bar   Association   (for   short   “SCBA”), <\/p>\n
Tilak   Marg,   New   Delhi.     It   is   directed   against   interim <\/p>\n
order   dated   April   5,   2003,   passed   by   learned   Civil <\/p>\n
Judge,   Delhi   below   application   filed   under   Order   39 <\/p>\n
Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure  <\/p>\n
Code   (CPC)   filed   in   Civil   Suit   No.   101   of   2003.     Civil  <\/p>\n
Appeal No. 3402 of 2003 is filed by Supreme Court Bar  <\/p>\n
Association   through   its   Honorary   Secretary   against <\/p>\n
interim   order   dated   April   5,   2003,   passed   by   the <\/p>\n
learned Civil Judge below application filed under Order <\/p>\n
39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151, CPC, filed in <\/p>\n
Civil Suit No. 101 of 2003.  By the common order, the <\/p>\n
appellants   are   restrained   from   implementing   the <\/p>\n
                                                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
resolution dated February 18, 2003 amending Rule 18 <\/p>\n
of   the   Rules   and   Regulations   of   SCBA   till   the   final <\/p>\n
disposal of both the suits.\n<\/p>\n
3.    The respondent in Civil Appeal No. 3401 of 2003  <\/p>\n
is   Shri   B.D.   Kaushik   whereas   the   respondent   in   Civil <\/p>\n
Appeal   No.   3402   of   2003   is   Shri   A.K.   Manchanda.\n<\/p>\n
Both   the   respondents   are   the   advocates   practicing   in <\/p>\n
Delhi.    They are  members of  SCBA,  Delhi  High  Court <\/p>\n
Bar   Association,   Delhi   Bar   Association,   Tis   Hazari <\/p>\n
Courts, Delhi, etc.   The appellant No. 1, i.e., Supreme <\/p>\n
Court Bar Association is a Society registered on August <\/p>\n
25,   1999   under   the   Societies   Registration   Act,   1860 <\/p>\n
and   its   Registration   No.   is   35478   of   1999.     The <\/p>\n
Registered   Office   of   the   Association   is   in   Supreme <\/p>\n
Court   premises   at   New   Delhi.     The   provisions   of   the <\/p>\n
Societies   Registration   Act,   1860   empower   a   society   to <\/p>\n
frame   Memorandum   of   Association   and   Rules   and <\/p>\n
Regulations.         In   exercise   of   those   powers   the <\/p>\n
Association has framed Memorandum of Association of <\/p>\n
the SCBA as also the Rules and Regulations.  The aims <\/p>\n
and   objectives   of   the   Association   are   specified   in <\/p>\n
                                                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
Clause 3 of the Memorandum of Association, which are <\/p>\n
as under: –\n<\/p>\n
     “3.      AIMS   AND   OBJECTIVES:   The   Aims <\/p>\n
     and Objectives of the association are:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     i)       To promote upholding of rule of law;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     ii)      To   encourage   profession   of   law   in <\/p>\n
              India;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
     iii)     To   promote   and   protect   the   privileges, <\/p>\n
              interest and prestige of the association <\/p>\n
              and to promote union and cooperation <\/p>\n
              among  the  advocates practicing  in the <\/p>\n
              court   and   other   associations   and <\/p>\n
              advocates;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
     iv)      To   promote   and   maintain   high \n\n              standards           of         profession         among \n\n              members of the Bar;\n\n\n     v)       To establish and maintain an adequate \n\n<\/pre>\n
              library for the use of the members and <\/p>\n
              to   provide   other   facilities   and <\/p>\n
              convenience to the members;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     vi)      To   watch   the   state   of   law,   progress   of <\/p>\n
              legislation   and   administration   of <\/p>\n
              justice and to take such steps as may <\/p>\n
              be   necessary   for   their   progress   and <\/p>\n
              reform;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
     vii)     To   express   opinion   on   proposed <\/p>\n
              legislation   and   other   matters   of <\/p>\n
              interest and to make representation in <\/p>\n
              respect thereof;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
     viii)    To take necessary steps to prevent and <\/p>\n
              remedy   any   abuse   of   law   or   mal-<\/p>\n
              administration of justice;<\/p>\n
                                                                     5<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     ix)      To   make   representation   from   time   to <\/p>\n
              time   to   the   authorities   on   matters <\/p>\n
              affecting the Bar;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
     x)       To   acquire   and   safeguard   the   rights <\/p>\n
              and privileges necessary or convenient <\/p>\n
              for the purpose of the association;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     xi)      To   arrange   for   raising   funds   for   legal <\/p>\n
              aid   and   to   do   everything   including <\/p>\n
              applying   of   funds   that   may   be <\/p>\n
              necessary to that end;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
     xii)     To promote and participate in All India <\/p>\n
              Lawyers’   Association   and   activities <\/p>\n
              connected therewith;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
     xiii)    To adopt all such matters as might be <\/p>\n
              necessary or incidental to the carrying <\/p>\n
              out of the aforesaid objects;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     xiv)     To   take   measures   including   founding <\/p>\n
              and   applying   of   funds   for   aid   to <\/p>\n
              deserving   members   of   the   association <\/p>\n
              and its employees;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
     xv)      To   conduct   and   hold   seminars, <\/p>\n
              symposia,   conference   on   issues   and <\/p>\n
              topics of interest to the legal profession <\/p>\n
              and to disseminate information in this <\/p>\n
              behalf; and<\/p>\n
     xvi)     To promote the welfare of the members <\/p>\n
              of the association.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
The  Rules  and  Regulations  framed  by  the  Association <\/p>\n
are known as Rules and Regulations of Supreme Court <\/p>\n
Bar Association.   Rule 3 of the Rules and Regulations <\/p>\n
defines certain phrases.   Rule 3(i) defines `Association’  <\/p>\n
                                                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
to   mean   the   Supreme   Court   Bar   Association.     There <\/p>\n
are   four   classes   of   Members   as   specified   in   Rule   4.\n<\/p>\n
They   are   (i)   Resident   Members,   (ii)   Non-resident <\/p>\n
Members,   (iii)   Associate   Members,   and   (iv)   Non-Active <\/p>\n
Members.   As per Rule 3(ii) `Associate Member’ means <\/p>\n
an association of advocates practicing in a High Court <\/p>\n
or Judicial Commissioner’s Court and enrolled as such <\/p>\n
a Member.   Rule 3(iv) defines the term  `Committee’ to <\/p>\n
mean   Executive   Committee   of   the   Bar   Association <\/p>\n
whereas Rule 3(v) defines the word `Court’ to mean the <\/p>\n
Supreme Court of India.  The term `Member’ is defined <\/p>\n
in  Rule  3(vi) to  mean a  member of  Association.    Sub-\n<\/p>\n
rule (vi)(a) of Rule 3, which was inserted by resolution  <\/p>\n
of   Special   General   Body   Meeting   dated   September   9, <\/p>\n
2010   retrospectively   with   effect   from   September   14, <\/p>\n
2009, defines `Temporary Member’ to mean a member <\/p>\n
other than a member within the meaning of Rule 3(vi).\n<\/p>\n
`Non-Active Member’ is defined in Rule 3(viii) to mean a <\/p>\n
Member   whose   name   is   kept   on   the   list   of   Members <\/p>\n
notwithstanding   he   has   accepted   an   office   of   profit <\/p>\n
disentitling   him   to   practice.     The   phrase   `Resident <\/p>\n
                                                                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
Member’   is   defined   in   Rule   3(ix)   to   mean   a   member <\/p>\n
residing  and  practicing  as an  advocate  in  Delhi  or  its <\/p>\n
suburbs.     Rule   5   of   the   Rules   and   Regulations   deals <\/p>\n
with fees, admission and subscription.\n<\/p>\n
      Rule   5(v)(a)   provides   that   in   terms   of   Rule   5   an <\/p>\n
applicant found to be suitable to be made a member of <\/p>\n
the   Association,   will   be   made   a   member,   initially   on <\/p>\n
temporary   basis   for   a   period   of   two   years.     It   further <\/p>\n
provides   that   a   person   so   made   a   member   on <\/p>\n
temporary   basis   will   be   identified   as   temporary <\/p>\n
member   and   such   temporary   member   will   be   entitled <\/p>\n
to avail the facilities of the Association such as library <\/p>\n
and   canteen   etc.,   but   he   will   not   have   a   right   to <\/p>\n
participate   in   general   meetings   as   prescribed   in   Rule <\/p>\n
21 or to  contest and vote at the  elections  as provided <\/p>\n
in   Rule   18   and   to   be   issued   a   Library   Card.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation   appended   to   Rule   5(v)(b)   makes   it   clear <\/p>\n
that `suitable’ means a person applying must fulfill all <\/p>\n
the  criteria listed in  the  Rules  and Regulations  of  the <\/p>\n
Association,   viz.,   Rule   5(v)   and   also   satisfy   the <\/p>\n
requirements   prescribed   in   the   prescribed   form.     As <\/p>\n
                                                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
per Rule 5(v)(c) at the end of two years period from the <\/p>\n
date   of   approval   of   temporary   membership   by   the <\/p>\n
Executive Committee, if such temporary member pays <\/p>\n
SCBA   dues   without   any   default   during   such   period <\/p>\n
and   produces   the   proof   of   either   of   the   following   of <\/p>\n
requirements   before   the   Executive   Committee,   his <\/p>\n
name   would   be   considered   for   being   made   a   regular <\/p>\n
Member of the Association – (i) appearance in Supreme <\/p>\n
Court  as lead counsel in  at least  five matters in  each <\/p>\n
year   of   the   two   years   period,   or   (ii)   appearance   in <\/p>\n
Supreme   Court   as   a   junior   advocate   appearing   with <\/p>\n
any   senior   advocate\/advocate-on   record   in   at   least <\/p>\n
twenty   matters   in   each   year   of   the   two   years   period, <\/p>\n
(iii) only such of the temporary members on satisfying <\/p>\n
the above requirements at the end of two years period <\/p>\n
would   be   made   a   member   of   the   Association   with   an <\/p>\n
entitlement   to   all   the   privileges   of   the   Association <\/p>\n
including   the   right   to   contest   and   vote   and   Library <\/p>\n
Card   etc.,   else,   he\/she   shall   continue   to   remain   a <\/p>\n
temporary member till such  time  he\/she  fulfills these <\/p>\n
conditions.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       9<\/span><\/p>\n
4.    A   requisition   dated   January   10,   2003   signed   by <\/p>\n
      343   Members   was   received   in   the   Office   of   the <\/p>\n
      SCBA   on   January   23,   2003.     By   the   said <\/p>\n
      requisition an amendment was sought in Rule 18 <\/p>\n
      regarding the eligibility of the members to contest <\/p>\n
      and vote at an election.  It was proposed that the <\/p>\n
      member,   who   exercises   his   right   to   vote   in   any <\/p>\n
      High   Court   or   District   Court,   Advocates’\/Bar <\/p>\n
      Association,   shall   not   be   eligible   to   contest   for <\/p>\n
      any   post   of   the   SCBA   or   to   cast   his   vote   at   the <\/p>\n
      elections.     It   was   further   proposed   that   every <\/p>\n
      member   before   casting   his   vote   shall   in   a <\/p>\n
      prescribed  form  give  a declaration  that  he  is not <\/p>\n
      voting   in   any   other   election   of   advocates   in   the <\/p>\n
      High   Court\/District   Court   Bar   Association.     It <\/p>\n
      was   also   proposed   that   if   such   a   declaration   is <\/p>\n
      found   to   be   false,   it   shall   entail   automatic <\/p>\n
      suspension   of   the   member   giving   such   false <\/p>\n
      declaration   from   membership   of   SCBA   for   a <\/p>\n
      period   of   three   years.     The   requisition   dated <\/p>\n
      January   10,   2003   was   considered   in   the <\/p>\n
                                                            10<\/span><\/p>\n
Executive Committee meeting held on February 1, <\/p>\n
2003 and it was decided to hold a special General <\/p>\n
Body   Meeting   on   February   18,   2003   to   consider <\/p>\n
the   requisition.     Rule   22   of   the   Rules   and <\/p>\n
Regulations of SCBA provides that  the Executive <\/p>\n
Committee   may   call   a   General   Body   Meeting   on <\/p>\n
seven days’ notice to the  members whereas Rule <\/p>\n
23   stipulates   the   manner   in   which   notice   of <\/p>\n
meeting   has   to   be   given   to   a   member.\n<\/p>\n
Accordingly   notices   for   the   aforesaid   General <\/p>\n
Body   Meeting   were   issued   by   the   SCBA   on <\/p>\n
February   6,   2003.     The   notices   were   sent   to   the <\/p>\n
members   along   with   the   cause   list.     The   notice <\/p>\n
was   also   displayed   on   the   notice   board   of   the <\/p>\n
Office   of   the   SCBA   situated   at   Supreme   Court <\/p>\n
premises.   The notices were also sent to different <\/p>\n
Bar Associations at Delhi including the Delhi Bar <\/p>\n
Association.     On   February   18,   2003   the   General <\/p>\n
Body   Meeting   was   convened   wherein   more   than <\/p>\n
278 Members had participated.   Mr. Ved Sharma <\/p>\n
and Mr. Rajiv Khosla, Office Bearers\/Members of <\/p>\n
                                                                    11<\/span><\/p>\n
the         District\/Delhi         Bar         Association         had <\/p>\n
participated   and   had   spoken   against   the <\/p>\n
resolution   in   the   General   Body   Meeting.     After <\/p>\n
due   deliberations   and   discussion,   the   resolution <\/p>\n
proposing   amendment   in   Rule   18   of   the   Rules <\/p>\n
was put to vote.  It was passed by majority of 85% <\/p>\n
of the members present and voting.  Thereafter, a <\/p>\n
meeting   of   the   Executive   Committee   was <\/p>\n
convened on March 3, 2003.  In the said meeting <\/p>\n
it   was   resolved   to   hold   election   of   the   Office <\/p>\n
Bearers\/Executive   Members  for   the   next   session <\/p>\n
and for the constitution of Election Committee.  It <\/p>\n
was further resolved to hold election on April 25, <\/p>\n
2003.  An election Committee of three members of <\/p>\n
the   SCBA   was   constituted   for   the   purposes   of <\/p>\n
conducting election.   Further in the said meeting <\/p>\n
a requisition signed by 237 Members of SCBA to <\/p>\n
recall   resolution   dated   February   18,   2003   was <\/p>\n
considered   and   dealt   with.     It   was   decided   to <\/p>\n
defer   the   consideration   of   the   said   resolution   in <\/p>\n
view   of   the   fact   that   elections   were   declared.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          12<\/span><\/p>\n
Moreover,   in   the   meeting   of   the   Executive <\/p>\n
Committee   held   on   March   10,   2003   it   was <\/p>\n
resolved   to   constitute   an   Implementation <\/p>\n
Committee to implement the resolution “One Bar <\/p>\n
One   Vote”,   which   was   adopted   in   the   General <\/p>\n
Body   Meeting   dated   February   18,   2003.     The <\/p>\n
notices of the election and about formation of the <\/p>\n
Implementation   Committee   were   sent   to   the <\/p>\n
Members   of   the   Bar   Association   on   March   11, <\/p>\n
2003   again   along   with   the   cause   list   and <\/p>\n
conveyed   also   by   displaying   the   same   on   the <\/p>\n
notice   board   of   the   SCBA.     On   March   13,   2003, <\/p>\n
meeting   of   the   Implementation   Committee   was <\/p>\n
held   and   the   declaration   form   was   finalized   and <\/p>\n
programme for implementation was also decided.\n<\/p>\n
The notices regarding declaration form were again <\/p>\n
issued on March 25, 2003.   Meanwhile, Mr. B.D.\n<\/p>\n
Kaushik, who is one of the members of the SCBA <\/p>\n
as   well   as   a   member   of   the   High   Court   Bar <\/p>\n
Association,   Delhi   Bar   Association,   Tis   Hazari <\/p>\n
Courts, filed Suit No. 100 of 2003 in the Court of  <\/p>\n
                                                            13<\/span><\/p>\n
Shri Sanjeev Jain, Commercial Civil Judge, Delhi, <\/p>\n
challenging   validity   of   resolution   dated   February <\/p>\n
18, 2003.  He has sought a decree declaring that <\/p>\n
Resolution   dated   February   18,   2003,   passed   by <\/p>\n
the General Body Meeting of SCBA inserting Rule <\/p>\n
18-III,   is   illegal   and   ineffective.     He   had   also <\/p>\n
prayed   for   a   decree   of   perpetual   injunction <\/p>\n
restraining the SCBA and its Office Bearers from <\/p>\n
implementing   the   Resolution   dated   February   18, <\/p>\n
2003   in   the   elections   of   SCBA,   which   were <\/p>\n
proposed to be held on April 25, 2003.   Further, <\/p>\n
the   prayer   to   restrain   the   SCBA   and   its   election <\/p>\n
officers from debarring any of the members of the <\/p>\n
SCBA,   who   had   already   paid   their   subscription <\/p>\n
from   casting   their   votes   in   the   ensuing   elections <\/p>\n
was   also   sought.     Mr.   A.K.   Manchanda,   another <\/p>\n
member of the SCBA, filed suit No. 101 of 2003 in <\/p>\n
the Court of Shri Sanjeev Jain, Commercial Civil <\/p>\n
Judge,   Delhi,   seeking   the   reliefs   which   were <\/p>\n
sought by Mr. B.D. Kaushik in his suit No. 100 of <\/p>\n
2003.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
5.    Mr.   B.D.   Kaushik   and   Mr.   A.K.   Manchanda,   the <\/p>\n
      plaintiffs   in   Suit   Nos.   100   of   2003   and   101   of <\/p>\n
      2003 respectively,  filed applications  under  Order <\/p>\n
      39   Rules   1   and   2   read   with   Section   151   of   the  <\/p>\n
      Code   of   Civil   Procedure   to   restrain   the <\/p>\n
      defendants,   who   are   appellants   herein,   from <\/p>\n
      implementing   the   Resolution   dated   February   18, <\/p>\n
      2003 till the final disposal of the suits.   Both the <\/p>\n
      applications   were   taken   up   together   for   hearing <\/p>\n
      by   the   learned   Judge.     The   learned   Judge <\/p>\n
      disposed of those applications seeking temporary <\/p>\n
      injunction by common order dated April 5, 2003.\n<\/p>\n
      By   the   said   common   order   the   applications   filed <\/p>\n
      by   the   plaintiffs   under   Order   39   Rules   1   and   2 <\/p>\n
      were   allowed   and   the   appellants   were   restrained <\/p>\n
      from implementing the Resolution dated February <\/p>\n
      18,   2003   amending   Rule   18   of   the   Rules   and <\/p>\n
      Regulations  of the  SCBA  till the  final  disposal  of <\/p>\n
      the   suits.     As   the   injunction   granted   by   the <\/p>\n
      learned   Judge   had   far   reaching   repercussions, <\/p>\n
      the appellants straightway approached this Court <\/p>\n
                                                           15<\/span><\/p>\n
by   filing   Special   Leave   Petition   No.   D-7644   of <\/p>\n
2003   against   order   dated   April   5,   2003   in   Suit <\/p>\n
No.   100   of   2003,   passed   by   the   learned   Civil <\/p>\n
Judge,   Delhi.     The   SCBA   also   filed   Special   leave <\/p>\n
Petition   No.   D-7645   of   2003   against   order   dated <\/p>\n
April   5,   2003   in   Suit   No.   101   of   2003.     The <\/p>\n
matters   were   placed   before   this   Court   in <\/p>\n
mentioning   list   on   April   10,   2003.     This   Court <\/p>\n
had heard the then learned Attorney General and <\/p>\n
other   learned   senior   advocates   practicing   in   this <\/p>\n
Court.     The   matters   were   taken   on   Board   and <\/p>\n
straightway   leave   was   granted.                Pending <\/p>\n
proceedings, stay of the common order passed by <\/p>\n
the   trial   court   was   also   granted.     It   was   made <\/p>\n
clear   that   if   any   elections   were   held,   the   same <\/p>\n
shall be subject to the result of these appeals.  It <\/p>\n
was also clarified that the order shall be effective <\/p>\n
notwithstanding   any   other   order   made   by   any <\/p>\n
court  or   authority   in   any   other   proceedings   filed <\/p>\n
or yet to be filed.  On leave being granted Special <\/p>\n
Leave   Petition   No.   D-7644   of   2003   is   numbered <\/p>\n
                                                                 16<\/span><\/p>\n
      as Civil Appeal No. 3401 of 2003 whereas Special <\/p>\n
      Leave   Petition   No.   D-7645   of   2003   is   numbered <\/p>\n
      as Civil Appeal No. 3402 of 2003.\n<\/p>\n
6.    This   Court   had   appointed   Mr.   Ranjit   Kumar, <\/p>\n
      learned   senior   counsel   practicing   in   this   Court, <\/p>\n
      as   Amicus   Curie   to   assist   the   Court   in   the <\/p>\n
      matters.     This   Court   has   also   requested   learned <\/p>\n
      Attorney   General   Mr.   Goolam   Vahanvati   to <\/p>\n
      express his views in the matters and to assist the <\/p>\n
      Court.  Accordingly, this Court has heard learned <\/p>\n
      Attorney   General   as   well   as   learned   senior <\/p>\n
      counsel   Mr.   Ranjit   Kumar.     The   Court   has   also <\/p>\n
      heard Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal, who has appeared on <\/p>\n
      behalf   of   the   appellants   as   well   as   Mr.   Dinesh <\/p>\n
      Kumar   Garg,   learned   advocate   who   appeared   on <\/p>\n
      behalf   of   the   original   plaintiffs.     This   being   a <\/p>\n
      matter,   which   affects   the   learned   advocates <\/p>\n
      practicing in this Court, the Court has also heard <\/p>\n
      learned   senior   counsel   Mr.   P.P.   Rao,   former <\/p>\n
      President   of   SCBA,   Mr.   Pravin   Parekh,   present <\/p>\n
      President   of   SCBA   and   Mr.   Sushil   Kumar   Jain, <\/p>\n
                                                                  17<\/span><\/p>\n
      President   of   Association   of   Advocates-on-Record.\n<\/p>\n
      The   Court   has   considered   the   Memorandum   of <\/p>\n
      Association   of   SCBA   as   well   as   Rules   and <\/p>\n
      Regulations of SCBA.\n<\/p>\n
7.    It is not disputed by any of the learned advocates <\/p>\n
      appearing   in   the   matters   that   after   stay   of <\/p>\n
      common   order   dated   April   5,   2003,   passed   in <\/p>\n
      Civil Suit No. 100 of 2003 and Civil Suit No. 101 <\/span><\/p>\n
      of   2003   was   granted   by   this   Court   on   April   10, <\/p>\n
      2003, elections of the  office bearers of the SCBA <\/p>\n
      have   taken   place   and   Rule   18   of   the   Rules   and <\/p>\n
      Regulations,   as   was   amended   by   the   Resolution <\/p>\n
      dated February 18, 2003, has been implemented.\n<\/p>\n
8.    Article   145   (1)(a)   of   the   Constitution   empowers <\/p>\n
      the  Supreme  Court  to  make Rules for  regulating <\/p>\n
      generally the practice and procedure of the Court <\/p>\n
      including   Rules   as   to   the   persons   practicing <\/p>\n
      before   the   Court.            In   exercise   of   this <\/p>\n
      constitutional   power,   the   Supreme   Court   has <\/p>\n
      framed Rules called Supreme Court Rules, 1966.\n<\/p>\n
                                                            18<\/span><\/p>\n
Rule   2(1)(b)   provides   that   an   advocate-on-record <\/p>\n
to be the only person to “act” as well as to “plead”\n<\/p>\n
before   this   Court.     The   other   two   categories   of <\/p>\n
persons,   namely,   “senior   advocate”   and   “non-\n<\/p>\n
advocate-on-record”   can   only   plead,   but   cannot <\/p>\n
act   on   behalf   of   the   client.                   Their <\/p>\n
appearances\/pleadings   in   a   case   before   this <\/p>\n
Court   cannot   be   without   an   advocate-on-record <\/p>\n
and   without   his   instructions.     Order   IV   of   the <\/p>\n
Supreme   Court   Rules,   1966   deals   with <\/p>\n
“advocates”.     Rule   1   states   that   subject   to   the <\/p>\n
provisions   of   the   Rules   only   those   advocates <\/p>\n
whose names are entered on the roll of any State <\/p>\n
Bar   Council,   maintained   under   the   Advocates <\/p>\n
Act,   1961,   shall   be   entitled   to   appear   and   plead <\/p>\n
before   the   Court.     As   per   Rule   2(b)   certain <\/p>\n
restrictions  have  been placed on  senior  advocate <\/p>\n
who   is   recognized   as   such   under   Rule   2(a), <\/p>\n
mentioning   inter-alia   that   he   cannot   file   a <\/p>\n
vakalatnama   or   act   in   any   court   or   tribunal   in <\/p>\n
India or accept instructions to draw pleadings or <\/p>\n
                                                              19<\/span><\/p>\n
affidavits,   etc.     Explanation   (iii)   appended   to   the <\/p>\n
Order   IV   defines   “junior”   to   mean   an   advocate <\/p>\n
other than a senior advocate.   Rule 6(a) provides <\/p>\n
that   an   advocate-on-record   shall,   on   his   filing   a <\/p>\n
memorandum of appearance on behalf of a party <\/p>\n
accompanied by a vakalatnama duly executed by <\/p>\n
the party, is entitled to act as well as to plead for <\/p>\n
the   party   in   the   matter   and   to   conduct   and   to <\/p>\n
prosecute   before   the   Court   all   proceedings   that <\/p>\n
may   be   taken   in   respect   of   the   said   matter.\n<\/p>\n
Clause   (b)   of   Rule   6   mentions   that   no   advocate <\/p>\n
other   than   an   advocate-on-record   shall   be <\/p>\n
entitled to file an appearance or act for a party in <\/p>\n
the court.   Rule 10 of the Rules provides that no <\/p>\n
advocate   other   than   an   advocate-on-record   shall <\/p>\n
appear   and   plead   in   any   matter   unless   he   is <\/p>\n
instructed   by   an   advocate-on-record,   whereas <\/p>\n
Rule 12 enables an advocate-on-record or  a firm <\/p>\n
of   advocates   to   employ   one   or   more   clerks   to <\/p>\n
attend the registry for presenting or receiving any <\/p>\n
papers   on   behalf   of   the   said   advocate   or   firm   of <\/p>\n
                                                                   20<\/span><\/p>\n
      advocates.     Rule   12(2)   mandates   that   notice   of <\/p>\n
      every   application   for   the   registration   of   a   clerk <\/p>\n
      shall be given to the  Secretary, SCBA, who  shall <\/p>\n
      be entitled to bring to the notice of the Registrar <\/p>\n
      within seven days of the receipt of the notice any <\/p>\n
      facts,  which,  in  his  opinion,  may have  a  bearing <\/p>\n
      on   the   suitability   of   the   clerk   to   be   registered.\n<\/p>\n
      Rule 13(1) requires the Registrar to publish list of <\/p>\n
      persons proved to his satisfaction  by evidence of <\/p>\n
      general   repute   or   otherwise,   habitually   to   act   as <\/p>\n
      touts   to   be   known   as   list   of   touts.     Explanation <\/p>\n
      (b)   appended   to   Rule   13(1)   mentions   that   the <\/p>\n
      passing   of   a   resolution   by   the   SCBA   or   by   High <\/p>\n
      Court Bar Association declaring any person to be <\/p>\n
      tout   shall   be   evidence   of   general   repute   of   such <\/p>\n
      person for the purpose of this Rule.\n<\/p>\n
9.    The Advocates Act, 1961 provides for the creation <\/p>\n
      of different State Bar Councils, whose one or the <\/p>\n
      main   function   is   to   admit   advocates   on   its   rolls <\/p>\n
      and to promote the growth of Bar Associations for <\/p>\n
      the   purpose   of   effective   implementation   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                             21<\/span><\/p>\n
welfare   schemes.     It   further   enables   the   Bar <\/p>\n
Councils to make their own rules.   Section 17 of <\/p>\n
the   Advocates   Act   provides   that   every   Sate   Bar <\/p>\n
Council   shall   prepare   and   maintain   roll   of <\/p>\n
advocates.     Section   17(4)   further   states   that   no <\/p>\n
person   shall   be   enrolled   as   an   advocate   on   the <\/p>\n
roll of more than one State Bar Council.   Section <\/p>\n
49 of the Advocates Act, 1961 empowers the Bar <\/p>\n
Council of India to make rules.  In exercise of the <\/p>\n
said   power   Bar   Council   of   India   has   framed <\/p>\n
Rules.   Chapter III of Bar Council Rules provides <\/p>\n
that   every advocate   shall   be  under   an  obligation <\/p>\n
to ensure that his name appears on the roll of the <\/p>\n
State   Bar   Council   in   whose   jurisdiction   he <\/p>\n
ordinarily practices and if that advocate does not <\/p>\n
apply for transfer of his name to the roll of State <\/p>\n
Bar   Council   within   whose   jurisdiction   he <\/p>\n
ordinarily practices within six months of the start <\/p>\n
of   such   practice,   it   shall   be   deemed   that   he   is <\/p>\n
guilty   of   professional   misconduct.     Section   34   of <\/p>\n
the Advocates Act, 1961 also empowers the High <\/p>\n
                                                                   22<\/span><\/p>\n
       Courts   to   make   Rules   regarding   the   advocate <\/p>\n
       practicing   in   the   High   Court   and   courts <\/p>\n
       subordinate thereto.\n<\/p>\n
10.    The   learned   counsel,   appearing   in   the   matters, <\/p>\n
       pointed   out   to   the   Court   that   problem   of   bogus <\/p>\n
       voting   in   the   election   of   office   bearers   of   SCBA <\/p>\n
       started   since   the   year   1978.     According   to   the <\/p>\n
       learned counsel, in the year 1978, 101 Members <\/p>\n
       contested   election   for   the   post   of   Members   of <\/p>\n
       Executive Committee.  The grievance made by the <\/p>\n
       learned   counsel   was   that   those   advocates,   who <\/p>\n
       were   not   regularly   practicing   in   this   Court,   were <\/p>\n
       enrolled as Members of the SCBA only to vote at <\/p>\n
       the   election   of   office   bearers   of   the   SCBA.\n<\/p>\n
       According   to   the  learned   counsel,   the   advocates, <\/p>\n
       who have been enrolled as Members of the SCBA <\/p>\n
       are   practicing   either   at   Kanpur   or   at   Gurgaon <\/p>\n
       and other courts situated in India, but they never <\/p>\n
       practice in this Court regularly nor are even able <\/p>\n
       to   recognize   the   Hon’ble   Judges   of   this   Court.\n<\/p>\n
       The   learned   counsel   emphasized   that   those <\/p>\n
                                                                   23<\/span><\/p>\n
       advocates,   who   are   not   practicing   in   this   Court <\/p>\n
       and   are   enrolled   as   members   of   the   SCBA,   have <\/p>\n
       outnumbered   the   actual   practitioners   in   this <\/p>\n
       Court and do not permit the actual practitioners <\/p>\n
       to   be   office   bearers   of   the   SCBA.     Thus   the <\/p>\n
       learned advocates appearing in the matters have <\/p>\n
       called   upon   this   Court   to   consider   the   problem <\/p>\n
       posed   in   the   appeals   in   the   light   of   facts <\/p>\n
       mentioned by them.\n<\/p>\n
11.    The Supreme Court Bar Association, as the name <\/p>\n
       suggests, is a society primarily meant to promote <\/p>\n
       the   welfare   of   the   advocates   generally   practicing <\/p>\n
       in   the   Supreme   Court.     The   name,   i.e.,   the <\/p>\n
       Supreme   Court   Bar   Association   was   formally <\/p>\n
       registered   under   the   Societies   Registration   Act, <\/p>\n
       1860 only on August 25, 1999.  One of the prime <\/p>\n
       objectives   of   the   SCBA   is   to   establish   and <\/p>\n
       maintain   adequate   library   for   the   use   of   the <\/p>\n
       members   and   to   provide   other   facilities   and <\/p>\n
       convenience   of   the   members.                Thus,   the <\/p>\n
       formation   of   the   SCBA  is  in   the   nature  of   aid  to <\/p>\n
                                                                   24<\/span><\/p>\n
       the   Advocates   Act,   1961   and   other   relevant <\/p>\n
       statutes including Article 145 of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
12.    There is no manner of doubt that court annexed <\/p>\n
       Bar   Associations   constitute   a   separate   class <\/p>\n
       different from other lawyers associations such as <\/p>\n
       Lawyers’ Forum, All India Advocates’ Association, <\/p>\n
       etc.   as   they   are   always   recognized   by   the <\/p>\n
       concerned   court.              Court   annexed   Bar <\/p>\n
       Associations function as part of the machinery for <\/p>\n
       administration   of   justice.     As   is   said   often,   the <\/p>\n
       Bench   and   Bar   are   like   two   wheels   of   a   chariot <\/p>\n
       and one cannot function without  the other.   The <\/p>\n
       court   annexed   Bar   Associations   start   with   the <\/p>\n
       name of the court as part of the name of the Bar <\/p>\n
       Association   concerned.     That   is   why   we   have <\/p>\n
       Supreme   Court   Bar   Association,   Tis   Hazari <\/p>\n
       District   Court   Bar   Association,   etc.     The   very <\/p>\n
       nature   of   such   a   Bar   Association   necessarily <\/p>\n
       means   and   implies   that   it   is   an   association <\/p>\n
       representing members regularly practicing in the <\/p>\n
       court   and   responsible   for   proper   conduct   of   its <\/p>\n
                                                                   25<\/span><\/p>\n
       members   in   the   court   and   for   ensuring   proper <\/p>\n
       assistance to the court.  In consideration thereof, <\/p>\n
       the   court   provides   space   for   office   of   the <\/p>\n
       association,   library   and   all   necessary   facilities <\/p>\n
       like chambers at concessional rates for members <\/p>\n
       regularly   practicing   in   the   court,   parking   place, <\/p>\n
       canteen   besides   several   other   amenities.     In   the <\/p>\n
       functions   organized   by   the   court   annexed   Bar <\/p>\n
       Associations the Judges participate and exchange <\/p>\n
       views and ascertain the problems, if any, to solve <\/p>\n
       them   and   vice-versa.     There   is   thus   regular <\/p>\n
       interaction   between   the   members   of   the   Bar <\/p>\n
       Association   and   the   Judges.              The   regular <\/p>\n
       practitioners   are   treated   as   officers   of   the   court <\/p>\n
       and are shown due consideration.\n<\/p>\n
13.    Enrolment   of   advocates   not   practicing   regularly <\/p>\n
       in   the   court   is   inconsistent   with   the   main   aim <\/p>\n
       and   object   of   the   Association.     No   court   can <\/p>\n
       provide   chambers   or   other   facilities   for   such <\/p>\n
       outside   advocates,   who   are   not   regular <\/p>\n
       practitioners.     Neither   the   Association   nor   the <\/p>\n
                                                             26<\/span><\/p>\n
court   can   deal   with   them   effectively   if   they <\/p>\n
commit   any   wrong.              There   are   sufficient <\/p>\n
indications   in   the   Memorandum   of   Association <\/p>\n
and   the   Rules   and   Regulations   of   SCBA,   which <\/p>\n
indicate   that   the   Association   mainly   tries   to <\/p>\n
promote   and   protect   the   privileges,   interest   and <\/p>\n
prestige of the Association and to promote union <\/p>\n
and   cooperation   among   the   advocates   practicing <\/p>\n
in the court and other associations of advocates.\n<\/p>\n
This   is   quite   evident   if   one   refers   to   sub-clause <\/p>\n
(iii) of clause (3) of the Aims and Objectives of the  <\/p>\n
Association.     It   is   significant   to   note   that   the <\/p>\n
signatories   of   the   Memorandum   of   Association, <\/p>\n
namely,   Members   of   the   Executive   Committee, <\/p>\n
whose   names   are   mentioned,   are   all   regular <\/p>\n
practitioners,   who   got   the   Association   registered <\/p>\n
under   the   Societies   Registration   Act,   1860.     Mr. <\/p>\n
P.P.   Rao,   learned   senior   counsel   has   given   all <\/p>\n
credit   for   registration   of   Association   to   Shri   K.K.\n<\/p>\n
Venugopal, one of the senior-most counsel of this <\/p>\n
Court.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    27<\/span><\/p>\n
14.    Rule 6 of the Rules and Regulations of the SCBA <\/p>\n
       mentions   the   duties   of   Members.     It   inter   alia <\/p>\n
       provides   that   (i)   a   member   shall   endeavour   to <\/p>\n
       provide   full   assistance   to   the   court   and <\/p>\n
       competent   representation   to   a   client,   (iii)   a <\/p>\n
       member   shall   not   knowingly   (a)   make   a   false <\/p>\n
       statement of material fact or  of law to the court, <\/p>\n
       (b) shall not seek to influence the court or Judges <\/p>\n
       or   officers   of   the   court   in   any   matter   by   means <\/p>\n
       prohibited   by   law   or   by   false   representation   on <\/p>\n
       behalf   of   his   client   nor   shall   such   member <\/p>\n
       communicate   with   such   persons   ex-parte   or <\/p>\n
       engage in conduct intending to bring disrepute to <\/p>\n
       the   functioning   of   the   court.     Rule   6(iii)(c) <\/p>\n
       provides   that   a   member   of   the   Association   shall <\/p>\n
       participate   in   serving   those   persons\/groups   of <\/p>\n
       persons   who   are   unable   to   pay   all   or   portion   of <\/p>\n
       reasonable   fees   or   who   are   unable   to   obtain <\/p>\n
       representation   by   counsel.     Clause   (c)   of   Rule <\/p>\n
       6(iii)   inter   alia   states   that   a   member   may <\/p>\n
       discharge his duty to serve those persons who are <\/p>\n
                                                                       28<\/span><\/p>\n
       unable to pay all or portions of reasonable fees by <\/p>\n
       providing professional  services at no  fees or  at  a <\/p>\n
       substantially   reduced   fee.     A   member   of   the <\/p>\n
       Association   has   to   charge   reasonable   fees   from <\/p>\n
       his   client   which   has   to   be   determined   on   the <\/p>\n
       basis   of   the   time   and   labour   spent   over   the <\/p>\n
       matter and is not entitled to charge a contingent <\/p>\n
       fee.     Thus   duties   of   members   contemplate   that <\/p>\n
       the   members   should   be   regular   practitioners   in <\/p>\n
       the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
15.    As   noticed   earlier,   no   person   can   be   enrolled   as <\/p>\n
       an   advocate   on   the   roll   of   more   than   one   State <\/p>\n
       Bar Council.   A citizen of India is entitled to cast <\/p>\n
       his vote at an election of Legislative Assembly or <\/p>\n
       an election of M.P. only in the constituency where <\/p>\n
       his name appears as a voter in the voting list and <\/p>\n
       he   cannot   claim   right   to   vote   at   another   place <\/p>\n
       where   he   may   be   residing   because   of   his <\/p>\n
       occupation,   service,   etc.     Thus   “one   person   one <\/p>\n
       vote” is recognized statutorily since long.   Viewed <\/p>\n
       in   the   light   of   these   facts,   the   concept   of   voting <\/p>\n
                                                                       29<\/span><\/p>\n
       introduced by amendment of Rule 18 of the Rules <\/p>\n
       and Regulations of the SCBA cannot be regarded <\/p>\n
       as illegal or unconstitutional.  It is well settled by <\/p>\n
       catena of reported decisions of this Court that the <\/p>\n
       right   to   vote   is   not   an   absolute   right.     Right   to <\/p>\n
       vote   or   to   contest   election   is   neither   a <\/p>\n
       Fundamental Right nor a common law right, but <\/p>\n
       it is purely a statutory right governed by statute\/ <\/p>\n
       rules\/regulations.     The   right   to   contest   an <\/p>\n
       election   and   to   vote   can   always   be   restricted   or <\/p>\n
       abridged,   if   statute\/   rules   or   regulations <\/p>\n
       prescribe so.  Voting right restrictions also existed <\/p>\n
       in Rule 18 and 18A before Rule 18 was amended.\n<\/p>\n
       By amendment a further restriction is imposed by <\/p>\n
       the   Resolution   adopted   in   the   General   Body <\/p>\n
       Meeting.\n<\/p>\n
16.    The   argument   that   by   the   said   amendment   of <\/p>\n
       Rule   18   the   Aims   and   Objects   of   the   SCBA   are <\/p>\n
       amended   without   prior   approval   of   the   Registrar <\/p>\n
       of   Societies   and,   therefore,   the   same   is   illegal, <\/p>\n
       cannot be accepted.   The impugned order makes <\/p>\n
                                                                   30<\/span><\/p>\n
       it   more   than   clear   that   this   ground   has   heavily <\/p>\n
       weighed   with   the   learned   Judge   in   granting   the <\/p>\n
       injunction.     The   substance   and   purpose   of   the <\/p>\n
       amendment   made   in   Rule   18   of   the   Rules   and <\/p>\n
       Regulations of the SCBA cannot be lost site of.  It <\/p>\n
       does not  affect any of the aims and objectives of <\/p>\n
       the   SCBA.     On   the   contrary,   it   promotes   and <\/p>\n
       protects   privileges,   interest   and   prestige   of   the <\/p>\n
       SCBA.     There   is   no   manner   of   doubt   that   the <\/p>\n
       amended   Rule   18   promotes   union   and <\/p>\n
       cooperation   among   the   advocates   practicing   in <\/p>\n
       this Court and this is one of the prime aims and  <\/p>\n
       objectives of forming the SCBA.  The SCBA exists <\/p>\n
       for   the   purpose   of   promoting   the   interest   of   the <\/p>\n
       Supreme   Court   of   India   as   well   as   that   of <\/p>\n
       advocates   regularly   practicing   in   the   Court   and <\/p>\n
       not   of   the   advocates,   who   are   not   regularly <\/p>\n
       practicing in the Court.\n<\/p>\n
17.    It   has   been   rightly   pointed   out   by   the   learned <\/p>\n
       counsel for the appellant that restrictions placed <\/p>\n
       on   right   of   voting   can   hardly   be   regarded   as <\/p>\n
                                                              31<\/span><\/p>\n
altering or amending Aims and Objects of SCBA.\n<\/p>\n
The   Aims   and   Objects   of   SCBA   have   been <\/p>\n
enumerated in earlier part of this judgment.  The <\/p>\n
basic principle underlying the amendment of Rule <\/p>\n
18 is that those advocates who are not practicing <\/p>\n
regularly   in   this   Court   cannot   be   permitted   to <\/p>\n
take over the affairs of the SCBA nor on ransom.\n<\/p>\n
One   of   the   Aims   and   Objects   of   the   SCBA   is   to  <\/p>\n
promote   and   protect   the   privileges,   interest   and <\/p>\n
prestige   of   the   Association   whereas   another <\/p>\n
objective   is   to   promote   and   maintain   high <\/p>\n
standards   of   profession   among   members   of   the <\/p>\n
Bar.     To   achieve   these   objectives   Rule   18   is <\/p>\n
amended.            It   is   wrong   to   hold   that <\/p>\n
limitations\/restrictions on the exercise of right to <\/p>\n
vote and contest the elections amount to altering <\/p>\n
and\/or   amending   and\/   or   changing   Aims   and <\/p>\n
Objects of the SCBA and this could not have been <\/p>\n
done without the consent of Registrar as provided <\/p>\n
in Societies Registration Act, 1860.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     32<\/span><\/p>\n
18.    Section 12 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 <\/p>\n
       invests   a   society   with   the   power   to   frame   rules\/ <\/p>\n
       regulations   to   govern   the   body   of   any   society <\/p>\n
       under   the   Act,   which   has   been   established   for <\/p>\n
       any particular purpose or purposes.  In built in it <\/p>\n
       is the authority to alter or abridge such power.  If <\/p>\n
       such a wide power is conferred including power to <\/p>\n
       alter,   amend   or   abridge   the   purpose   itself,   it <\/p>\n
       could   never   be   successfully   contended   that   the <\/p>\n
       power   to   amend,   vary   or   rescind   the   rules   does <\/p>\n
       not exist in such society.\n<\/p>\n
19.    As   noticed   earlier   `Associate   Member’   means   an <\/p>\n
       association   of   advocates   practicing   in   a   High <\/p>\n
       Court   or   Judicial   Commissioners’   Court   and <\/p>\n
       enrolled as such a member.  As an association of <\/p>\n
       advocates   cannot   practice   in   a   High   Court   or <\/p>\n
       Judicial Commissioners’ Court, it is obvious that <\/p>\n
       an associate member is a member of association <\/p>\n
       of   advocates   practicing   in   a   High   Court   and <\/p>\n
       enrolled   as   such   a   Member.     The   intention, <\/p>\n
       therefore,   is   obvious   that   it   is   only   an   advocate, <\/p>\n
                                                                     33<\/span><\/p>\n
       who is practicing in a High Court or in a court of <\/p>\n
       Judicial   Commissioner   and   enrolled   as   a <\/p>\n
       member,   who   is   entitled   to   the   status   of   an <\/p>\n
       `Associate   Member’   for   the   purpose   of   the   Rules <\/p>\n
       and Regulations of the SCBA.   When it comes to <\/p>\n
       the   question   of   voting   or   contesting   for   an <\/p>\n
       election,   Rule   18(1)(iv)   declares   that   non-active <\/p>\n
       members   and   associate   members   shall   not   have <\/p>\n
       right to vote.  It is, therefore, clear that the SCBA <\/p>\n
       is   constituted   primarily   for   those   advocates   who <\/p>\n
       are   regularly   practicing   in   the   Supreme   Court.\n<\/p>\n
       Other  advocates can  become  non-resident senior <\/p>\n
       members,   non-resident   members,   associate <\/p>\n
       members  and  non-active  members,  but   they   will <\/p>\n
       not   be   eligible   to   vote   much   less   to   contest   the <\/p>\n
       election.     Thus,   the   amendment   in   Rule   18   is <\/p>\n
       wholly consistent with the aims and objectives of <\/p>\n
       the SCBA.\n<\/p>\n
20.    This   Court   further   finds   that   in   the   application <\/p>\n
       filed   by   the   respondents\/plaintiffs   in   each   suit <\/p>\n
       under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section <\/p>\n
                                                                     34<\/span><\/p>\n
 151   CPC,   injunction   against   the   appellants   to <\/p>\n
 restrain them from implementing resolution dated <\/p>\n
 February   18,   2003   amending   Rule   18   of   the <\/p>\n
 Rules   and   Regulations   of   SCBA   till   the   final <\/p>\n
 disposal   of   the   suits,   was   claimed.     A   bare <\/p>\n
 perusal of the plaint of Civil Suit No. 100 of 2003 <\/p>\n
 indicates   that   the   respondent   has   claimed <\/p>\n
 following reliefs in the plaint: –\n<\/p>\n
 “a.     A   decree   of   declaration   declaring   that <\/p>\n
         the resolution dated 18.2.2003 passed <\/p>\n
         by the alleged General Body Meeting of <\/p>\n
         Supreme   Court   Bar   Association <\/p>\n
         amending   Rule   18-III   is   illegal   and <\/p>\n
         ineffective;\n<\/p>\n
b.      pass   a   decree   of   perpetual   injunction <\/p>\n
        restraining   the   defendant   No.   1 <\/span><\/p>\n
        Association   and   its   office   bearers   from <\/p>\n
        implementing   the   resolution   dated <\/p>\n
        18.2.2003   in   the   ensuing   elections   of <\/p>\n
        Supreme            Court         Bar         Association <\/p>\n
        proposed to be held on 25.4.2003;\n<\/p>\n
c.      This Hon’ble Court may also be pleased <\/p>\n
        to   restrain   the   defendant   No.   1 <\/span><\/p>\n
        association,   its   election   officer(s)   from <\/p>\n
        debarring   any   of   the   members   of <\/p>\n
        Supreme   Court   Bar   Association   who <\/p>\n
        have   already   paid   their   subscription <\/p>\n
        from   casting   their   vote   in   the   ensuing <\/p>\n
        elections.\n<\/p>\n
d.      Any   other   proper   and   further   order <\/p>\n
        which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may <\/p>\n
                                                                      35<\/span><\/p>\n
             kindly   be   passed   in   favour   of   the <\/p>\n
             plaintiff and against the defendants.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus,   the   learned   Judge   has   decreed  the   suit   partially <\/p>\n
by granting injunction without adjudicating rival claims <\/p>\n
of   the   parties.     This   Court   in   catena   of   reported <\/p>\n
decisions has laid down the principle that interim relief, <\/p>\n
which   has   tendency   to   allow   the   final   relief   claimed   in <\/p>\n
the   proceedings,   should   not   be   granted   lightly.     No <\/p>\n
special   circumstances   have   been  mentioned   in   the   two <\/p>\n
impugned orders which would justify decreeing the suits <\/p>\n
at   interim   stage.     The   relief   granted   by   the   learned <\/p>\n
Judge   at   the   interim   stage   was   not   warranted   by   the <\/p>\n
facts of the case at all.  Therefore, the impugned orders <\/p>\n
are also liable to be set aside on this ground.\n<\/p>\n
21.     Further,   Order   39   Rule   1   deals   with   cases   in <\/p>\n
        which  temporary  injunction   may  be  granted  and <\/p>\n
        inter   alia   provides   that   where   in   any   suit   it   is <\/p>\n
        proved   by   affidavit   or   otherwise   –   (a)   that   any <\/p>\n
        property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being  <\/p>\n
        wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the <\/p>\n
                                                                    36<\/span><\/p>\n
        suit,  or  wrongfully sold in  execution  of  a decree, <\/p>\n
        (b)   that   the   defendant   threatens,   or   intends,   to <\/p>\n
        remove  or  dispose  of  his  property  with  a  view  to <\/p>\n
        defrauding   his   creditors,   (c)   that   the   defendant <\/p>\n
        threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or  otherwise <\/p>\n
        cause   injury   to   the   plaintiff   in   relation   to   any <\/p>\n
        property in dispute in the suit, the Court may, by <\/p>\n
        order,   grant   a   temporary   injunction   to   restrain <\/p>\n
        such   act,   or   make   such   other   order   for   the <\/p>\n
        purpose   of   staying   and   preventing   the   wasting, <\/p>\n
        damaging, alienation, sale removal or disposition <\/p>\n
        of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or <\/p>\n
        otherwise   causing   injury   to   the   plaintiff   in <\/p>\n
        relation to any property in dispute in the suit as <\/p>\n
        the Court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit <\/p>\n
        or until further orders.\n<\/p>\n
        Order 39 Rule 2 deals with injunction to restrain <\/p>\n
repetition   or   continuance   of   breach   and   inter   alia <\/p>\n
provides   that   in   any   suit   for   restraining   the   defendant <\/p>\n
from committing a breach of contract or other injury of <\/p>\n
any  kind,  whether  compensation  is claimed in   the  suit <\/p>\n
                                                                    37<\/span><\/p>\n
or   not,   the   plaintiff   may,   at   any   time   after   the <\/p>\n
commencement   of   the   suit   and   either   before   or   after <\/p>\n
judgment, apply to the court for a temporary injunction <\/p>\n
to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of <\/p>\n
contract   or   injury   complained   of,   or   any   breach   of <\/p>\n
contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same  <\/p>\n
contract or relating to the same property or right.\n<\/p>\n
        As is well-known Section 151 deals with saving of <\/p>\n
inherent powers of the Court and provides that nothing <\/p>\n
in   Civil   Procedure   Code   shall   be   deemed   to   limit   or <\/p>\n
otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make <\/p>\n
such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice  <\/p>\n
or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
22.     It   hardly   needs   to   be   emphasized   that   in   any <\/p>\n
        Body   governed   by   democratic   principles,   no <\/p>\n
        member has a right to claim an injunction so as <\/p>\n
        to   stall   the   formation   of   the   Governing   Body   of <\/p>\n
        the Association.    No such right exists in election <\/p>\n
        matters   since   exercise   of   a   right   conferred   by   a <\/p>\n
        rule   is   always   subject   to   the   qualifications <\/p>\n
                                                                         38<\/span><\/p>\n
       prescribed   and   limitations   imposed   thereunder.\n<\/p>\n
       The   contention   of   the   respondents   that   the <\/p>\n
       amendment   to   Rule   whereunder   the   right   to   be <\/p>\n
       eligible to contest for any post for the Association <\/p>\n
       or   the   eligibility   to   cast   the   vote   at   the   election, <\/p>\n
       takes away the  right  completely, is misconceived <\/p>\n
       since   by   the   amendment   the   right   is   not   taken <\/p>\n
       away   but   is   preserved   subject   to   certain <\/p>\n
       restrictions on its exercise and this could always <\/p>\n
       be done.\n<\/p>\n
23.    It is important to notice that what the impugned <\/p>\n
       Rule does is that it only declares the eligibility of <\/p>\n
       a member to contest and vote and does not take <\/p>\n
       away ipso facto the right to vote.   The impugned <\/p>\n
       Rule   only   prescribes   the   eligibility   or   makes   a <\/p>\n
       person   ineligible   in   the   circumstances   stated <\/p>\n
       therein   which   is   the   nature   of   a   reasonable <\/p>\n
       restriction   as   the   right   to   vote   is   neither   a <\/p>\n
       common   law   right   nor   Fundamental   Right   but   a <\/p>\n
       statutory   right   prescribed   by   the   statute   as   has <\/p>\n
       been   held   in   several   reported   decisions   of   this <\/p>\n
                                                             39<\/span><\/p>\n
Court.     What   is   necessary   to   be   noticed   here   is <\/p>\n
that   the   impugned   clause   in   the   Rule   is   not   the <\/p>\n
only   clause   prescribing   ineligibility   to   vote   as <\/p>\n
there are other eligibility conditions or ineligibility <\/p>\n
restrictions within Rule 18, which may also make <\/p>\n
a   person   ineligible   to   vote.     The   challenge, <\/p>\n
therefore, to this ineligibility of filing a declaration <\/p>\n
not   to   vote   at   the   elections   to   any   other   Bar <\/p>\n
Association is erroneous in law.  If a person is the <\/p>\n
member of several  associations  of  advocates and <\/p>\n
wants   to   participate   in   the   affairs   of   different <\/p>\n
associations   of   which   he\/she   is   a   member, <\/p>\n
he\/she   may   not   be   in   a   position   to   be   really <\/p>\n
involved in the affairs of all associations of which <\/p>\n
he\/she   is   the   member.     A   person   who   is   a <\/p>\n
member of more than one association would form <\/p>\n
a different class than the person who is a member <\/p>\n
of   only   one   association   of   lawyers,   particularly, <\/p>\n
the   association   of   the   Court   in   which   he\/she <\/p>\n
regularly   practices.     Though   an   advocate   can   be <\/p>\n
member of several associations, the right to form <\/p>\n
                                                               40<\/span><\/p>\n
an association  or be a member of an association <\/p>\n
does   not   necessarily   include   the   right   to   vote   at <\/p>\n
every such association’s General Body Meeting or <\/p>\n
election meetings and the rules of the association <\/p>\n
can circumscribe the voting rights of members of <\/p>\n
such   association   by   prescribing   eligibility   and <\/p>\n
ineligibility.  It is an admitted position that SCBA <\/p>\n
today has temporary members who do not have a <\/p>\n
right to vote.   Similarly, non-active members and <\/p>\n
associate   members   do   not   have   a   right   to   vote.\n<\/p>\n
Thus, these are all reasonable restrictions which <\/p>\n
have   been   prescribed   and   are   not   open   to <\/p>\n
challenge   as   there   is   no   Fundamental   Right   to <\/p>\n
vote.     After   all   a   Bar   Association   in   a   court   is <\/p>\n
formed for the purpose of seeing that all lawyers <\/p>\n
practicing   normally   and   regularly   in   that   court <\/p>\n
work under one umbrella and be in a position to <\/p>\n
interact with the Judges or officials of that court <\/p>\n
for   any   grievance   through   their   elected   body <\/p>\n
because individual lawyers are not supposed nor <\/p>\n
it  is  proper   for  them  to  interact  with   the  Judges <\/p>\n
                                                                        41<\/span><\/p>\n
        so as to preserve and secure the independence of <\/p>\n
        judiciary.\n<\/p>\n
24.     The   argument   of   the   respondents   was   that   the <\/p>\n
        right   to   vote   available   to   a   member   has   been <\/p>\n
        infringed or curtailed but this argument does not <\/p>\n
        appear   to   be   correct   for   the   simple   reason   that <\/p>\n
        though   the   Rule   is   couched   in   a   negative <\/p>\n
        language,   it   preserves   the   right   of   a   Member   to <\/p>\n
        either   contest   or   to   cast   his   vote   in   the   election <\/p>\n
        subject to his exercising an option to vote only in <\/p>\n
        the   SCBA   and   not   in   any   High   Court\/District <\/p>\n
        Court Bar Association.\n<\/p>\n
        This   is   amply   clear   from   the   amended   provision <\/p>\n
whereunder   every   member   before   casting   his   vote,   is <\/p>\n
required,   in   the   prescribed   form,   to   give   a   declaration <\/p>\n
that   he   has   not   voted   in   any   other   election   of   any <\/p>\n
advocates   in   the   High   Court\/District   Court   Bar <\/p>\n
Association.     The   restriction   on   the   right   to   vote   of   a <\/p>\n
member   is   provided   with   an   avowed   object   of   better <\/p>\n
welfare   and   convenience   of   those   advocates,   who   are <\/p>\n
                                                                     42<\/span><\/p>\n
regularly   practicing   in   this   Court   and   who   are   directly <\/p>\n
concerned with day-to-day affairs of the Supreme Court.\n<\/p>\n
Such   restriction   in   fact   subserves   Article   145   of   the <\/p>\n
Constitution   and   other   statutory   provisions   relating   to <\/p>\n
advocates.     As   right   to   vote   is   not   an   absolute   right <\/p>\n
recognized in common law and is always subject to the <\/p>\n
statute\/Rules   creating   such   rights,   it   is   equally   well <\/p>\n
settled   that   the   exercise   of   such   right   could   always   be <\/p>\n
subject   to   the   provisions   of   the   Statute\/Rules   creating <\/p>\n
it.     Under   the   circumstances,   the   contention   advanced <\/p>\n
by   the   respondents   that   their   right   to   vote   was   either <\/p>\n
curtailed   or   abridged   should   not   have   been   lightly <\/p>\n
accepted by the learned Judge.\n<\/p>\n
25.     The right to form an association is recognized as <\/p>\n
        a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(c) of the <\/p>\n
        Constitution.     The   provision   in   the   SCBA   Rules <\/p>\n
        for prescribing eligibility to vote at only one of the <\/p>\n
        associations,   i.e.,   “One   Bar   One   Vote”   is   a <\/p>\n
        prescription   which   is   in   furtherance   of   the   right <\/p>\n
        to   form   association   and   be   able   to   manage   the <\/p>\n
        affairs   of   the   association   by   those   who   regularly <\/p>\n
                                                                 43<\/span><\/p>\n
practice in the courts of which the association is <\/p>\n
formed   and   of   which   the   members   are   regular <\/p>\n
practitioners.     It   will   not   be   out   of   place   to <\/p>\n
mention that a person having become ineligible to <\/p>\n
vote   because   of   having   voted   at   another <\/p>\n
association   election   does   not   (a)   lose   the <\/p>\n
membership   of   the   association   nor   (b)   is   in   any <\/p>\n
way   hampered   or   restricted   in   the   use   of   other <\/p>\n
facilities,   which   the   association   provides   to   its <\/p>\n
members            such         as         library,         canteen, <\/p>\n
telecommunication,   car   parking,   etc.       Having <\/p>\n
regard  to   the   aims   and  objects   as  set  out   in   the <\/p>\n
Memorandum   of   Association,   it   is   evident   that <\/p>\n
one   of  the  primary  objectives of  formation   of the <\/p>\n
association was to have a Body of Advocates who <\/p>\n
are   attached   to   and   practicing   in   the   Supreme <\/p>\n
Court   of   India.     In  Smt.   Damyanti   Naranga  vs. <\/p>\n
The   Union   of   India   and   others<\/a>  (1971)   1   SCC <\/p>\n
678, this Court has authoritatively laid down that <\/p>\n
the   right   to   form   an   association   necessarily <\/p>\n
implies that persons forming the association have <\/p>\n
                                                                  44<\/span><\/p>\n
also   the   right   to   continue   to   be   associated   with <\/p>\n
only   those   whom   they   voluntarily   admit   in   the <\/p>\n
association.           In     Zoroastrian   Cooperative <\/p>\n
Housing   Society   Ltd.   and   others  vs.  District <\/p>\n
Registrar,   Cooperative   Societies   (Urban)   and <\/p>\n
others<\/a>  (2005)   5   SCC   632,   in   the   context   of <\/p>\n
Fundamental   Right   to   form   an   association <\/p>\n
excluding others and the right of the Members of <\/p>\n
the   association   to   keep   others   out,   it   has   been <\/p>\n
held in para 17 at page 651 as under: –\n<\/p>\n
“Section   24  of the   Act, no  doubt, speaks of <\/p>\n
open membership, but Section 24(1) makes <\/p>\n
it   clear   that   open   membership   is   the <\/p>\n
membership   of   a   person   duly   qualified <\/p>\n
therefore   under   the   provisions   of   the   Act, <\/p>\n
the   Rules   and   the   bye-laws   of   the   Society.\n<\/p>\n
In   other   words,   Section   24(1)   does   not <\/p>\n
contemplate   an   open   membership   dehorns <\/p>\n
the bye-laws of the society.   Nor do we find <\/p>\n
anything   in   the   Act   which   precludes   a <\/p>\n
society   from   prescribing   a   qualification   for <\/p>\n
membership based on a belief, a persuasion <\/p>\n
or   a   religion   for   that   matter.     Section   30(2) <\/p>\n
of   the   Act   even   places   restrictions   on   the <\/p>\n
right   of   a   member   to   transfer   his   right.     In <\/p>\n
fact,   the   individual   right   of   the   member, <\/p>\n
Respondent   2,   has   got   submerged   in   the <\/p>\n
collective   right   of   the   Society.     In  State   of  <\/p>\n
U.P.   v.   C.O.D.   Chheoki   Employees’   Coop.\n<\/p>\n
Society   Ltd.  (1997)   3   SCC   681,   this   Court <\/p>\n
after   referring   to  Daman   Singh  vs.  State   of  <\/p>\n
                                                                       45<\/span><\/p>\n
       Punjab  (1985)   2   SCC   670,   held   in   para   16 <\/p>\n
       that: (SCC p. 691)<\/p>\n
             “16. Thus,   it   is   settled   law   that   no <\/p>\n
             citizen  has   a  fundamental  right   under <\/p>\n
             Article 19(1)(c) to become a member of <\/p>\n
             a   cooperative   society.     His   right   is <\/p>\n
             governed   by   the   provisions   of   the <\/p>\n
             statute.   So, the right to become or to <\/p>\n
             continue being a member of the society <\/p>\n
             is   a   statutory   right.     On   fulfillment   of <\/p>\n
             the qualifications prescribed to become <\/p>\n
             a   member   and   for   being   a   member   of <\/p>\n
             the   society   and   on   admission,   he <\/p>\n
             becomes   a   member.     His   being   a <\/p>\n
             member of the society is subject to the <\/p>\n
             operation   of   the   Act,   rules   and   bye-\n<\/p>\n
             laws   applicable   from   time   to   time.     A <\/p>\n
             member   of   the   society   has   no <\/p>\n
             independent right  qua  the   society  and <\/p>\n
             it   is   the   society   that   is   entitled   to <\/p>\n
             represent   as   the   corporate   aggregate.\n<\/p>\n
             No   individual   member   is   entitled   to <\/p>\n
             assail   the   constitutionality   of   the <\/p>\n
             provisions   of   the   Act,   rules   and   the <\/p>\n
             bye-laws as he has his right under the <\/p>\n
             Act,   rules   and   the   bye-laws   and   is <\/p>\n
             subject   to   its   operation.     The   stream <\/p>\n
             cannot rise higher than the source.”\n<\/p>\n
26.    In   matters   of   internal   management   of   an <\/p>\n
       association, the courts normally do not interfere, <\/p>\n
       leaving   it   open   to   the   association   and   its <\/p>\n
       members   to   frame   a   particular   bye-law,   rule   or <\/p>\n
       regulation which may provide for eligibility and or <\/p>\n
                                                                    46<\/span><\/p>\n
       qualification   for   the   membership   and\/or <\/p>\n
       providing   for   limitations\/restrictions   on   the <\/p>\n
       exercise  of any  right  by and  as a  member of  the <\/p>\n
       said association.\n<\/p>\n
       It   is   well   settled   legal   proposition   that   once   a <\/p>\n
person   becomes   a   member   of   the   association,   such   a <\/p>\n
person looses his individuality qua the  association  and <\/p>\n
he has no individual rights except those given to him by <\/p>\n
the   rules   and   regulations   and\/or   bye-laws   of   the <\/p>\n
association.\n<\/p>\n
27.    It should have been noticed by the learned Judge <\/p>\n
       that          the         plaintiffs\/respondents         claimed <\/p>\n
       injunction   on   the   basis   that   the   right   to   contest <\/p>\n
       and   vote   in   the   election   of   the   SCBA   had   been <\/p>\n
       adversely   affected   and,   therefore,   they   invoked <\/p>\n
       the   provisions   of   Order   39   Rules   1   and   2   read <\/p>\n
       with Section 151 CPC.  The amended Rule 18 has <\/p>\n
       not   taken   away   right   to   vote   completely   but   has <\/p>\n
       put   restrictions   to   promote   and   protect   the <\/p>\n
       privileges,   interest   and   prestige   of   the   SCBA.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                         47<\/span><\/p>\n
       Rule   18   was   also   amended   to   promote   and <\/p>\n
       maintain   high   standards   of   profession   amongst <\/p>\n
       Members of the Bar.  Having regard to the objects <\/p>\n
       of   amendment   of   Rule   18,   this   Court   is   of   the <\/p>\n
       opinion   that   the   learned   Judge   should   not   have <\/p>\n
       granted   the   injunction   as   claimed   by   the <\/p>\n
       plaintiffs\/respondents for mere asking.\n<\/p>\n
28.    Originally enacted Rule 18 provided for eligibility <\/p>\n
       of   members   to   contest   and   vote   at\/in   the <\/p>\n
       elections.  An important provision is contained in <\/p>\n
       Rule   18(II)(4)   to   the   effect   that   non-active <\/p>\n
       members   and   associate   members   shall   not   have <\/p>\n
       the right to vote.   In light of the above provisions <\/p>\n
       of   the   Rules,   more   particularly,   Rule   5(1)(v),   the <\/p>\n
       eligibility of every advocate entitled to practice law <\/p>\n
       for   being   a   member   of   the   Supreme   Court   Bar <\/p>\n
       Association is subject to the provisions of the said <\/p>\n
       Rules.     In   other   words,   an   absolute   right   as   is <\/p>\n
       sought          to         be         asserted         by         the <\/p>\n
       plaintiffs\/respondents is controlled by conditions, <\/p>\n
                                                                  48<\/span><\/p>\n
       qualifications,   disqualifications   and   restrictions <\/p>\n
       imposed by the said Rules.\n<\/p>\n
29.    The   power   to   amend   Rules   is   specifically <\/p>\n
       conferred   under   Rule   39   whereunder   it   is <\/p>\n
       provided   that   the   Rules   and   the   bye-laws   of   the <\/p>\n
       Association   shall   be   subject   to   such   conditions <\/p>\n
       and\/or   modifications,   as  may   from   time   to   time, <\/p>\n
       by   resolution   passed   by   at   least   2\/3rd  of   the <\/p>\n
       Members present and voting at the General Body <\/p>\n
       Meeting.     Therefore,   any   part   of   the   Rules   could <\/p>\n
       always   be   amended.     As   noticed   earlier,   SCBA <\/p>\n
       being   a   Society   registered   under   the   Societies <\/p>\n
       Registration Act, is governed by its Memorandum <\/p>\n
       of Association.  The said Association is entitled to <\/p>\n
       have its own Rules and Regulations.  In fact, it is <\/p>\n
       contemplated   in   the   Act   that   a   Committee   of <\/p>\n
       management   can   be   constituted   to   manage   the <\/p>\n
       affairs of the Society as specified in the Rules and <\/p>\n
       Regulations.   The Memorandum of Association is <\/p>\n
       a   contract   amongst   the   members   of   the   Society, <\/p>\n
       which though required to be registered under the <\/p>\n
                                                                      49<\/span><\/p>\n
       Statute, does not acquire any statutory character.\n<\/p>\n
       These are rules which govern internal control and <\/p>\n
       management   of   the   Society.     The   authority   to <\/p>\n
       frame,   amend,   vary   and   rescind   such   rules, <\/p>\n
       undoubtedly,   vests   in   the   General   Body   of   the <\/p>\n
       Members of the Society.  The power to amend the <\/p>\n
       rules is implicit in the power to frame rules.\n<\/p>\n
30.    Yet, another ground of attack in the suits filed by <\/p>\n
       the   respondents   is   with   reference   to   notice   of <\/p>\n
       meetings and  the  manner  of holding  of meetings <\/p>\n
       including   Special   General   Meeting.     The   record <\/p>\n
       produced by the SCBA before this Court indicates <\/p>\n
       that   the   meeting   in   which   the   amendment   was <\/p>\n
       carried   out   in   Rule   18   was   held   in   accordance <\/p>\n
       with   Rule   22   because   it   was   a   Special   General <\/p>\n
       Meeting.     The   holding   of   meetings   including <\/p>\n
       Special General Meeting is governed by Rules 21, <\/p>\n
       22 and 23, which read as under: –\n<\/p>\n
       “21. MEETINGS<\/p>\n
       The   Annual   General   Meeting   of   the <\/p>\n
       Association shall ordinarily be held not later <\/p>\n
       than   15th  day   of   May   every   year.     Not   less <\/p>\n
                                                              50<\/span><\/p>\n
than   15   days   notice   shall   be   given   to   the <\/p>\n
members   of   the   Annual   General   Meeting.\n<\/p>\n
The   following   shall   along   with   other <\/p>\n
business   that   may   be   required   to   be <\/p>\n
transacted, be included in the agenda of the <\/p>\n
Annual General Meeting.\n<\/p>\n
a) Auditor’s   Report   on   the   Account   and <\/p>\n
   Balance Sheet of Budget estimate;\n<\/p>\n
b) Report of the Secretary on the activities of <\/p>\n
   the terms which will include report of the <\/p>\n
   work   of   committee   other   than   the <\/p>\n
   Executive Committee;\n<\/p>\n
c) The   election   of   the   officers   of   the <\/p>\n
   Association   and   Members   of   Executive <\/p>\n
   Committee   or   other   committees   and <\/p>\n
   appointment of Auditors;\n<\/p>\n
d) The approval of the  revenue account and <\/p>\n
   the   balance   sheet   of   the   affairs   of   the <\/p>\n
   Association   as   on   31st  March   of   the <\/p>\n
   previous year duly passed.\n<\/p>\n
22.     SPECIAL GENERAL MEETING<\/p>\n
  The Committee may call a General Meeting <\/p>\n
on   7   days   notice   to   the   Members   provided <\/p>\n
that   a   Special   General   Meeting   may   be <\/p>\n
called on a shorter notice.\n<\/p>\n
        Provided that the Secretary may call an <\/p>\n
emergent   General   Meeting   on   any   day   by <\/p>\n
affixing a notice to that effect on the notice <\/p>\n
board of the Association and circulating the <\/p>\n
same   to   the   Members   as   can   be <\/p>\n
conveniently informed.\n<\/p>\n
        The   Committee   shall   call   a   General <\/p>\n
Meeting  or  a   Special  General  Meeting  upon <\/p>\n
                                                                51<\/span><\/p>\n
the   requisition   given   in   writing   by   at   least <\/p>\n
150   Members   of   the   Association   in   respect <\/p>\n
of any matter.   The requisition specified the <\/p>\n
matter   or   question   to   be   laid   before   the <\/p>\n
meeting   and   shall   be   addressed   to   the <\/p>\n
Secretary.     The   meeting   shall   be   called   not <\/p>\n
later than 2 weeks after the receipt of such <\/p>\n
requisition.     The   quorum   at   the   Annual <\/p>\n
General   Meeting   or   a   General   Meeting   or   a <\/p>\n
Special   General   Meeting   shall   be   50 <\/p>\n
Members.     In   absence   of   such   quorum   the <\/p>\n
meeting   shall   stand   adjourned   to   such   a <\/p>\n
date and time as the Chairman may appoint <\/p>\n
and   for   such   adjourn   meeting   no   quorum <\/p>\n
will be necessary.\n<\/p>\n
23.       NOTICE OF MEETING<\/p>\n
1.        The   notice   of   the   Annual   General <\/p>\n
Meeting or any of the Special Meeting shall <\/p>\n
be given by: –\n<\/p>\n
(a)       Circulating   the   notice,   to   such \n\n          members   as   can   conveniently   be \n\n          informed in that way;\n\n\n(b)       Sending   out   such   notices   by   post \n\n<\/pre>\n
          addressed   to   every  non-resident  and <\/p>\n
          associate   member   and   to   every <\/p>\n
          resident   member   who   may   have <\/p>\n
          required   the   Secretary   to   send   the <\/p>\n
          notice   in   this   way   and   has   registered <\/p>\n
          his   address   in   the   office   of   the <\/p>\n
          Association;\n<\/p>\n
The   notice   of   the   meeting   other   than   the <\/p>\n
Annual General Meeting shall be given by:\n<\/p>\n
(a) Affixing the notice on the notice board of <\/p>\n
       the Association;\n<\/p>\n
(b) Circulating   the   notice   to   such   members <\/p>\n
       as   may   be   conveniently   informed   in   that <\/p>\n
       way.”\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    52<\/span><\/p>\n
As   can   be   seen   from   the   bare   reading   of   these   Rules, <\/p>\n
notice by post has to go to non-resident members and to <\/p>\n
resident   members only   if   request   in   writing  is   made   to <\/p>\n
the Secretary that notices should be sent to him by post <\/p>\n
at his registered address, otherwise, notice by affixation <\/p>\n
on notice board and by circulating the notice, normally <\/p>\n
done with cause list is sufficient notice.  The record does <\/p>\n
not indicate at all that any of the plaintiffs\/respondents <\/p>\n
had   given   any   notice  to   the   Secretary   of   SCBA   that   he <\/p>\n
should be informed individually by a notice in writing of <\/p>\n
holding   of   any   meeting   by   sending   it   at   his   registered <\/p>\n
address.     There   is   weighty   reason   as   to   why   notice   by <\/p>\n
affixation   on   the   notice   board   and   by   circulating   the <\/p>\n
notice   with   cause   list   should   be   regarded   as   sufficient <\/p>\n
notice.  This is obviously so because advocate members <\/p>\n
normally practicing in this Court would be made aware <\/p>\n
by   these   methods   of   notice.     Thus   the   ground   of <\/p>\n
improper   holding   of   the   meeting   or   lack   of   service   of <\/p>\n
notice   upon   the   plaintiffs\/respondents   are   devoid   of <\/p>\n
                                                                  53<\/span><\/p>\n
merits and could not have been taken into consideration <\/p>\n
while granting injunction claimed by them.\n<\/p>\n
31.    On   page   2   of   the   paper   book   the   learned   trial <\/p>\n
       judge has mentioned details of the plaint and has <\/p>\n
       categorically stated as under: –\n<\/p>\n
       “It is disclosed in the plaint that members of <\/p>\n
       defendant   No.   1   are   scattered   in   various <\/p>\n
       parts   of   the   country   including   Delhi   and <\/p>\n
       majority of them do not visit the SCBA office <\/p>\n
       on regular basis.”\n<\/p>\n
In para 3 of the plaint it is averred as under: –\n<\/p>\n
       “Since   all   the   members   including   the <\/p>\n
       plaintiff do not visit the Supreme Court and <\/p>\n
       office of the defendant No. 1 Association on <\/p>\n
       regular basis, they do not have an occasion <\/p>\n
       to acquaint themselves about all the notices <\/p>\n
       and circulars put up by the defendant No. 1 <\/span><\/p>\n
       Association   on   its   notice   boards   in   the <\/p>\n
       Supreme Court building.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Further, at page 19 of the paper book a finding has been <\/p>\n
arrived at by the trial court as under: –\n<\/p>\n
       “Most   of   the   members   do   not   ordinarily <\/p>\n
       practice in the Supreme Court of India and <\/p>\n
       are members of other association.”<\/p>\n
                                                                    54<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
In the light of above pleadings, it is quite clear that the  <\/p>\n
plaintiffs\/respondents   who   were   seeking   to   challenge <\/p>\n
the impugned Rule which prescribed an eligibility clause <\/p>\n
to enable them to vote, have candidly admitted that they <\/p>\n
are not  regular  practitioners of the  Supreme Court nor <\/p>\n
do they attend the Supreme Court on regular basis nor <\/p>\n
are   aware   of   the   circulars   circulated   by   the   SCBA   or <\/p>\n
pasted   on   the   information   board   of   the   SCBA.     This   is <\/p>\n
something which has been totally overlooked by the trial <\/p>\n
court   in   arriving   at   a   conclusion   in   favour   of   the <\/p>\n
plaintiffs\/respondents   without   examining   the   true   and <\/p>\n
correct import of Rule 23 of the Rules, which prescribes <\/p>\n
the method of giving notice of the meeting.   There is no <\/p>\n
manner of doubt that the trial court has committed an <\/p>\n
error   in   coming   to   the   conclusion   that   in   any   case <\/p>\n
individual notice was required to be given when the rule <\/p>\n
does not warrant giving of any such individual notice.\n<\/p>\n
32.     The three reasons indicated by the learned Judge <\/p>\n
        in the impugned orders for grant of injunction are <\/p>\n
        not   sustainable   at   all   and,   therefore,   the <\/p>\n
        impugned orders will have to be set aside.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 55<\/span><\/p>\n
33.    Further, the appellants had rightly pointed out to <\/p>\n
       the   learned   Judge   that   election   process   had <\/p>\n
       already   started   and,   therefore,   injunction,   as <\/p>\n
       claimed, should not be granted.   Since 1952 this <\/p>\n
       Court   has   authoritatively   laid   down   that   once <\/p>\n
       election process has started the courts should not <\/p>\n
       ordinarily  interfere  with  the   said  process   by  way <\/p>\n
       of   granting   injunction.     The   argument   advanced <\/p>\n
       by   the   appellants   that   election   process   having <\/p>\n
       started,   the   injunction   should   not   be   granted   is <\/p>\n
       dealt with by the learned Judge by holding that in <\/p>\n
       the present case the plaintiffs have not prayed for <\/p>\n
       injunction   against   the   election   process.     This <\/p>\n
       Court   has   no   doubt   at   all   that   the   injunction <\/p>\n
       granted   by   the   learned   Judge   has   propensity   to <\/p>\n
       intervene   and   interfere   with   election   process <\/p>\n
       which   had   already   started.     Apart   from   the <\/p>\n
       prayers   claimed   in   the   applications   filed   under <\/p>\n
       Order   39   Rules   1   and   2   read   with   Section   151 <\/p>\n
       CPC   the   Court   could   not   have   ignored  the  effect <\/p>\n
       of   granting   an   injunction.     If   the   injunction <\/p>\n
                                                                    56<\/span><\/p>\n
       granted   by   the   learned   Judge   had   not   been <\/p>\n
       stayed   by   this   Court,   the   office   bearers   of   the <\/p>\n
       SCBA would have been required to prepare a new <\/p>\n
       voters   list   as   if   unamended   Rule   18   was   in <\/p>\n
       operation   and   the   exercise   undertaken   by   them <\/p>\n
       for   preparing   voters   list   in   the   light   of   the <\/p>\n
       amended   Rule   18   would   have   been   of   no <\/p>\n
       consequence.  Thus the injunction claimed by the <\/p>\n
       plaintiffs\/respondents   which   had   very   wide <\/p>\n
       repercussions on the elections, which were to be <\/p>\n
       held   in   the   year   2003,   should   not   have   been <\/p>\n
       granted by the learned Judge.\n<\/p>\n
34.    The impugned order is also liable to be set aside <\/p>\n
       on   yet   another   ground.     Though   the   suits   were <\/p>\n
       not   filed   in   a   representative   capacity,   the <\/p>\n
       injunction is granted by the court restraining the <\/p>\n
       appellants   from   implementing   the   resolution <\/p>\n
       dated   February   18,   2003   in   respect   of   all <\/p>\n
       advocates   and   not   in   respect   of   two   advocates <\/p>\n
       only   who   have   filed   Civil   Suit   Nos.   100   of   2003 <\/p>\n
       and   101   of   2003   respectively.     A   perusal   of   the  <\/p>\n
                                                                     57<\/span><\/p>\n
       plaint  in  the   two  suits makes it  more  than  clear <\/p>\n
       that   suits   are   not   filed   in   a   representative <\/p>\n
       capacity.     In   the   plaint,   individual   rights   to   vote <\/p>\n
       at   the   election   of   the   Executive   Committee   of <\/p>\n
       SCBA   is   claimed.     Even   if   extremely   good   case <\/p>\n
       was made out by the plaintiffs\/respondents of the <\/p>\n
       two suits, the relief could have been confined only <\/p>\n
       to   the   two   plaintiffs\/respondents   and   a   relief <\/p>\n
       granting   blanket   injunction   restraining   the <\/p>\n
       appellants   from   implementing   the   Resolution <\/p>\n
       dated February 18, 2003 amending Rule 18 of the <\/p>\n
       Rules   and   Regulations   of   SCBA   till   the   final <\/p>\n
       disposal of the suits could not have been granted.\n<\/p>\n
35.    For all these reasons impugned common order is <\/p>\n
       liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside.\n<\/p>\n
36.    Mr.   K.K.Venugopal,   an   august   and   well-known <\/p>\n
       senior  lawyer, who  is regularly  practicing  in  this <\/p>\n
       Court since years and was also former President <\/p>\n
       of SCBA at least for three years and who was also <\/p>\n
       Chairman, Interim Board of Management in 2010 <\/p>\n
                                                            58<\/span><\/p>\n
when  the   Executive  Committee   of  the   SCBA   had <\/p>\n
dissolved   itself   and   appointed   the   Interim   Board <\/p>\n
of Management, submitted that the statements of <\/p>\n
aims   and   objectives   of   the   SCBA,   among   others, <\/p>\n
includes   the   objective,   viz.,   “to   promote   and <\/p>\n
protect the privileges, interest and prestige of the <\/p>\n
association   and   to   promote   union   and <\/p>\n
cooperation   among   the   advocates   practicing   in <\/p>\n
the   court   and   other   association   and   advocates”.\n<\/p>\n
According  to   the   learned  counsel,  the   phrase   “to <\/p>\n
promote   union   and   cooperation   among   the <\/p>\n
advocates   practicing   in   the   court   and   other <\/p>\n
association   and   advocate”   is   to   promote   union <\/p>\n
and   cooperation   among   the   advocates   practicing <\/p>\n
in   the   Supreme   Court,   on   the   one   hand,   and <\/p>\n
other   advocates   or   associations   of   advocates,   on <\/p>\n
the other, which itself indicates that SCBA exists <\/p>\n
for   the   advocates   practicing   “in   the   court”,   i.e., <\/p>\n
Supreme   Court   of   India.     The   learned   counsel <\/p>\n
explained that SCBA exists for  the  benefit of the <\/p>\n
advocates   in   the   Supreme   Court   of   India   and <\/p>\n
                                                           59<\/span><\/p>\n
SCBA   owes   a   fiduciary   duty   to   such   advocates <\/p>\n
and   members   of   the   SCBA   for   protecting   their <\/p>\n
privileges,   interests   and   prestige.     The   learned <\/p>\n
counsel   asserted   that   the   SCBA   is,   therefore, <\/p>\n
entitled   to   seek   the   protection   of   the   Court   by <\/p>\n
invoking Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure <\/p>\n
that   the   members   practicing   in   the   Supreme <\/p>\n
Court   are   not   rendered   incapable   of   enjoying,   to <\/p>\n
the   full,   the   privileges   and   benefits   in   the <\/p>\n
Supreme   Court   of   India,   which   has   provided <\/p>\n
infrastructure   and   facilities   in   the   nature   of <\/p>\n
libraries,   car   parking,   chambers,   canteens, <\/p>\n
lounges,   etc.     The   learned   counsel   pointed   out <\/p>\n
that the factual situation, which has been placed <\/p>\n
before   the   Court,   would   establish   that   today   the <\/p>\n
membership   of   the   SCBA   has   risen   to   an   mind-\n<\/p>\n
boggling   figure   of   around   10,000,   of   which   only <\/p>\n
around 2,000 members are regularly practicing in <\/p>\n
this   Court.     Informing   the   Court   the   learned <\/p>\n
counsel   mentioned   that   historically,   with   the <\/p>\n
advocates   regularly   practicing   in   the   Supreme <\/p>\n
                                                           60<\/span><\/p>\n
Court   being   inducted   as   members   of   the   SCBA, <\/p>\n
the  facilities  made  available  by this  Court  to   the <\/p>\n
members were sufficient for their use, but certain <\/p>\n
unhealthy practices and vices started creeping in <\/p>\n
to   the   system   of   elections   to   the   various <\/p>\n
posts\/offices   of   the   SCBA   by   reason   of   the   fact <\/p>\n
that the office of the President of SCBA carried a <\/p>\n
vast   prestige   and   status,   not   merely   among <\/p>\n
lawyers   but   also   among   Governments   and   the <\/p>\n
political class.   It was also stated by the learned <\/p>\n
counsel that being an office bearer of a member of <\/p>\n
the Executive Committee of the SCBA also carried <\/p>\n
great importance  and  prestige.   According to  the <\/p>\n
learned counsel, the main vice that crept into the <\/p>\n
system,   for   the   last   decade   or   so   was   that <\/p>\n
aspiring   office   bearers   started   buying   the <\/p>\n
application   forms   for   membership,   in   bulk,   and <\/p>\n
paying   the   membership   fee   for   lawyers   from   the <\/p>\n
various  places  like  Meerut,  Rohtak,  Saharanpur, <\/p>\n
Ghaziabad   and   even   as   far   away   a   place   as <\/p>\n
Chandigarh.  The learned counsel Shri Venugopal <\/p>\n
                                                           61<\/span><\/p>\n
claimed   as   Chairman   of   the   Interim   Board   of <\/p>\n
Management   that   one   came   across   as   many   as <\/p>\n
100   subscription   forms,   paid   with   consecutive <\/p>\n
bank   draft   numbers,   as   disclosed   by   the   bank <\/p>\n
statements   obtained   by   the   Interim   Board   of <\/p>\n
Management, which showed that a single sponsor <\/p>\n
had   paid   vast   sums   of   money   for   each   of   these <\/p>\n
forms   and   memberships,   the   membership   fee <\/p>\n
being   Rs.5,150\/-   for   advocates   with   ten   years <\/p>\n
standing   and   Rs.3,650\/-   for   advocates   with   less <\/p>\n
than   ten   years   standing.     It   was   emphasized   by <\/p>\n
the learned counsel that practices like these have <\/p>\n
resulted   in   the   present   strength   of   the   SCBA <\/p>\n
being around 10,000 and it is a well known  fact <\/p>\n
among   the   members   of   the   Bar   regularly <\/p>\n
practicing   in   the   Supreme   Court   of   India   that <\/p>\n
persons   inducted   into   the   SCBA   through   such <\/p>\n
means,   numbering   about   8,000,   are   seen   in   the <\/p>\n
Supreme Court premises only on the day of SCBA <\/p>\n
elections  for  casting their  votes, otherwise, these <\/p>\n
persons have no interest whatsoever either in the <\/p>\n
                                                              62<\/span><\/p>\n
functioning   of   the   SCBA   or   the   well   being   of   its <\/p>\n
members or the functioning of the Supreme Court <\/p>\n
of   India,   as   a   Court.     The   learned   counsel   has <\/p>\n
produced   minutes   of   the   meeting   of   the   Interim <\/p>\n
Board   of   Management   dated   March   22,   2010 <\/p>\n
along with his written submissions for perusal of <\/p>\n
the Court.   The learned senior counsel lamented <\/p>\n
that   all   these   would   disclose   the   disgraceful <\/p>\n
condition   to   which   SCBA   has   been   reduced   on <\/p>\n
account   of   machinations   and   malpractices   of <\/p>\n
certain   members   of   the   SCBA,   who   are   aspiring <\/p>\n
for   offices   in   the   Executive   Committee   of   the <\/p>\n
SCBA.     The   learned   counsel   has   also   appended <\/p>\n
copies   of   Allotment   of   Lawyers’   Chambers   Rules <\/p>\n
as amended up to November 30, 2007 as well as <\/p>\n
letter   dated   August   10,   2004   inter   alia <\/p>\n
prescribing   eligibility   to   apply   for   allotment   of <\/p>\n
chambers   along   with   his   written   submissions.\n<\/p>\n
The   learned   counsel   has   pointed   out   that   the <\/p>\n
SCBA   is   facing   a   crises   today,   because   of   the <\/p>\n
induction of the vast number of members who do <\/p>\n
                                                              63<\/span><\/p>\n
not   practice   regularly   in   the   Supreme   Court   of <\/p>\n
India and, therefore, have no interest whatsoever <\/p>\n
in   the   function   of   the   Apex   Court   or   in   the <\/p>\n
reputation,   prestige   and   well   being   of   the   SCBA <\/p>\n
whereas, on the other hand, the sole objective of <\/p>\n
such   persons   is   to   ensure   that   their   respective <\/p>\n
sponsor(s),   who   paid   their   subscription   and <\/p>\n
entrance fee, would be elected to one of the posts <\/p>\n
of   the   SCBA,   including   the   post   of   SCBA <\/p>\n
President.     The   learned   counsel   has   expressed <\/p>\n
apprehension that the day may not be far of when <\/p>\n
the entire set of office bearers of the SCBA may be <\/p>\n
persons with no regular practice in the Supreme <\/p>\n
Court   of   India   and   who   may   have   their   regular <\/p>\n
practice   in   other   courts   in   Delhi   or   even   in   the <\/p>\n
adjoining towns or even in a city as far away from <\/p>\n
Delhi   as   Chandigarh.     The   learned   counsel <\/p>\n
argued   that   the   SCBA   has   to   shoulder   great <\/p>\n
responsibility   in   regard   to   the   effective <\/p>\n
functioning   of   the   Supreme   Court   itself,   the <\/p>\n
dispensation   of   justice   and   to   represent   the <\/p>\n
                                                                  64<\/span><\/p>\n
regular practicing members of the Bar from time <\/p>\n
to   time.     According   to   the   learned   counsel   the <\/p>\n
present   situation,   which   virtually   renders   the <\/p>\n
regularly   practicing   members   strangers   in   their <\/p>\n
own court can only be remedied if this Court were <\/p>\n
to   step   in,   to   exercise   its   vast   powers   under <\/p>\n
Article 142 of the Constitution, to ensure that the <\/p>\n
functioning   of   the   Court   itself   is   not   affected   by <\/p>\n
reason   of   the   huge   influx,   into   the   SCBA,   of <\/p>\n
advocates who have no interest in the functioning <\/p>\n
of  the  Supreme Court, its Bar  or  its association.\n<\/p>\n
The   learned   counsel   asserted   that   the <\/p>\n
circumstances   prevailing   are   such   that   it   is <\/p>\n
imperative for the well being of the institution, as <\/p>\n
well   as   Apex   Court   of   the   country   itself,   and   its <\/p>\n
regularly practicing members to ensure that it is <\/p>\n
only the regularly practicing members who will be <\/p>\n
eligible  to  cast  votes  at  the  SCBA  elections.     For <\/p>\n
this   purpose   the   learned   counsel   has   suggested <\/p>\n
that   it   is   essential   that   the   right   to   vote   in   the <\/p>\n
SCBA   elections   is   restricted   to   the   categories   of <\/p>\n
                                                                     65<\/span><\/p>\n
        persons   enumerated   in   the   Interim   Board   of <\/p>\n
        Management circular dated March 22, 2010, the <\/p>\n
        relevant   portion   whereof   has   been   extracted   in <\/p>\n
        the written submissions.\n<\/p>\n
        Mr.   P.P.Rao,   learned   celebrated   senior   counsel <\/p>\n
regularly practicing in this Court since long and who is <\/p>\n
also former President of SCBA, has emphasized that the <\/p>\n
very   name   of   Bar   Association,   viz.,   SCBA   necessarily <\/p>\n
means and implies that it is an association representing <\/p>\n
members   regularly   practicing   in   the   court   and <\/p>\n
responsible   for   proper   conduct   of   its   members   in   the <\/p>\n
court   and   for   ensuring   proper   assistance   to   the   court.\n<\/p>\n
The   learned   counsel   has,   in   his   written   submissions, <\/p>\n
mentioned   that   SCBA   needs   to   be   salvaged   from   the <\/p>\n
deluge   of   overwhelming   numbers   of   outside   advocates <\/p>\n
practicing   not   only   in   the   NCTR   but   even   all   other <\/p>\n
States   in   North   India   who   had   been   enrolled   by   short-\n<\/p>\n
sighted   candidates   with   an   eye   on   their   election   to   the <\/p>\n
SCBA.     The   learned   counsel   has   asserted   that   unless <\/p>\n
this Court comes to the rescue of SCBA, the association <\/p>\n
will   cease   to   be   a   court   annexed   Bar   Association   and <\/p>\n
                                                                   66<\/span><\/p>\n
words   “Supreme   Court”   will   have   to   be   dropped   and <\/p>\n
substituted   by   the   words   “North   India”.     Emphasizing <\/p>\n
that the character of the SCBA should not be allowed to <\/p>\n
be   diluted   in   any   circumstances,   the   learned   counsel <\/p>\n
has asserted that this is a fit case for exercise of powers <\/p>\n
under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution.     The   learned <\/p>\n
counsel   Mr.   P.P.   Rao   has   suggested   that   to   identify <\/p>\n
regular   practitioners   the   criteria   adopted   by   this   Court <\/p>\n
for   allotment   of   chambers   in  Vinay   Balchandra   Joshi <\/p>\n
vs.  Registrar   General   of   Supreme   Court   of   India<\/a> <\/p>\n
(1998)   7   SCC   461  at   pages   465-467   para   7,   may   be <\/p>\n
adopted   or   in   the   alternative   criteria   mentioned   in   the <\/p>\n
circular   dated   March   22,   2010   issued   by   the   Interim <\/p>\n
Board   of   Management   of   the   SCBA   consisting   of   M\/s.\n<\/p>\n
K.K. Venugopal, Chairman, Mr. P.P. Rao, Vice Chairman <\/p>\n
and Mr. P.H. Parekh, Member – Executive and Convener <\/p>\n
may be considered for acceptance mutatis mutandis.\n<\/p>\n
        Mr.   Ranjit   Kumar,   a   distinguished   attorney   of <\/p>\n
this   Court,   who   is   appointed   as   amicus   curie   in   this <\/p>\n
matter   to   assist   the   Court,   Mr.   Sushil   Kumar   Jain, <\/p>\n
learned President, Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record <\/p>\n
                                                                 67<\/span><\/p>\n
Association,   Mr.   D.K.Garg,   learned   Counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
respondent   and   who   was   also   in   past   President   of <\/p>\n
Supreme   Court   Advocates-on-Record   Association, <\/p>\n
pointed out to this Court the difficulties being faced by <\/p>\n
regular  members of the SCBA because of enlistment of <\/p>\n
large   number   non-regular   advocates   as   members   of <\/p>\n
SCBA, who according to them, now constitute a majority <\/p>\n
as a result of which the SCBA has not been able to take <\/p>\n
any decision which would be in the interest of the Bar.\n<\/p>\n
The   learned   Counsel   have   stated   in   their   written <\/p>\n
submissions  filed,  to   supplement  their   oral  arguments, <\/p>\n
that   there   are   more   than   ten   thousand   members   of <\/p>\n
SCBA   out   of   which   only   two   thousand   advocates   are <\/p>\n
regular   members   who   actually   practice   in   this   Court <\/p>\n
and   eight   thousand   non-regular   members   have   taken <\/p>\n
over the affairs of the SCBA in such a manner that it is  <\/p>\n
almost   impossible   for   the   regular   members   to   transact <\/p>\n
any   business   in   the   general   or   special   meetings   of <\/p>\n
SCBA.     The   learned   Counsel   emphasized   that   yearly <\/p>\n
subscription   for   members   of   SCBA   for   many   decades <\/p>\n
remained   fixed   at   a   paltry   amount   of   Rs.   500\/-   and  <\/p>\n
                                                                      68<\/span><\/p>\n
every   time   when   a   proposal   was   made   to   increase   the <\/p>\n
subscription the same was rejected by the General Body <\/p>\n
dominated by these non-regular members and that only <\/p>\n
recently  with   great   difficulty   the   subscription   has   been <\/p>\n
revised   to   Rs.  1500\/-  by   secret  ballot   held   within   high <\/p>\n
security   area   of   Supreme   Court   namely   Library   1,   but <\/p>\n
now there is a demand to reduce it again to Rs. 500\/-.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Counsel pointed out that if the subscription <\/p>\n
for   members   of   SCBA   is   again   revised   and   reduced   to <\/p>\n
Rs.500\/-, it will be a boon not only for such non-regular <\/p>\n
members but also a boon for the candidates contesting <\/p>\n
elections   who   will   have   to   shell   out   less,   for   enrolling <\/p>\n
those advocates who are not practicing regularly in this <\/p>\n
Court,   to   secure   their   votes   and   get   elected.     It   was  <\/p>\n
emphasized   that   the   enhanced   subscription   is   in   the <\/p>\n
interest   of   association   as   it   would   not   only   improve <\/p>\n
financial position of SCBA but also help to keep at bay <\/p>\n
those members who are not regularly practicing in this <\/p>\n
Court.     The   learned   Counsel   argued   that   this   Court <\/p>\n
provides   to   the   members   of   SCBA,   who   are   regularly <\/p>\n
practicing in this Court, several facilities\/benefits such <\/p>\n
                                                                 69<\/span><\/p>\n
as bar rooms, libraries, canteens, parking place, clinics, <\/p>\n
rest   rooms   etc.,   and   as   SCBA   is   intrinsically   and <\/p>\n
inextricably connected with the working of the Supreme <\/p>\n
Court, this Court should give appropriate directions for <\/p>\n
effective implementation of “One Bar One Vote” concept <\/p>\n
introduced by the amended rule in exercise of its powers <\/p>\n
under   Articles   136,   142   and   145(1)   (a)   of   the <\/p>\n
Constitution   to   relieve   the   SCBA   of   the   number   of <\/p>\n
maladies which have now come to be associated with it <\/p>\n
and   to   improve   the   working   of   the   institution   as   a <\/p>\n
whole.     What   was   stressed   by   all   the   learned   Counsel <\/p>\n
was that it is not in the interest of SCBA that advocates <\/p>\n
who  do not  practice in this Court regularly, vote for  or <\/p>\n
get elected to the Executive Committee of SCBA, but in <\/p>\n
past,   several   members   who   were   themselves   not <\/p>\n
regularly practicing in the Supreme Court had contested <\/p>\n
elections   for   different   posts   of   Executive   Committee   of <\/p>\n
SCBA   though   they   were   already   members   of   the <\/p>\n
Executive   Committees   of   other   Court   annexed   Bar <\/p>\n
Associations   and   had   come   out   successful   on   the <\/p>\n
strength of votes of such non-regular members who are <\/p>\n
                                                                     70<\/span><\/p>\n
to   be   seen  in   the   Court   compound   only   on   the   date   of <\/p>\n
elections.   The learned Counsel mentioned that persons <\/p>\n
so elected do not participate in the functioning of SCBA <\/p>\n
since   they   are   not   affected   by   the   working   or   non-\n<\/p>\n
working of the SCBA which has affected the functioning <\/p>\n
of SCBA as a facilitator  in the administration of justice <\/p>\n
and therefore in order to maintain purity and dignity of <\/p>\n
the profession this Court has not only power but duty to <\/p>\n
give   directions   under   Article   136   and   Article   142 <\/p>\n
particularly   when   request   is   made   by   the   learned <\/p>\n
amicus   curie,   SCBA   represented   by   its   Honorary <\/p>\n
Secretary,   President   of   Supreme   Court   Advocates-on-\n<\/p>\n
Record Association and other high-ranking lawyers like <\/p>\n
Shri K.K.Venugopal, Shri P.P.Rao etc., who are regularly <\/p>\n
practicing only in this Court.  Mr. D.K.Garg, the learned <\/p>\n
Counsel who represents respondent Mr. B.D.Kaushik in <\/p>\n
C.A. No. 3401 of 2003, frankly pointed out to this Court <\/p>\n
as an officer of the Court that in spite of other effective <\/p>\n
alternative   remedies   available   to   the   appellant   SCBA <\/p>\n
against the interim order dated April 5,2003 passed by <\/p>\n
the learned Civil Judge, Delhi, this Court had not  only <\/p>\n
                                                                   71<\/span><\/p>\n
entertained   Special   Leave   Petition   filed   by   SCBA,   but <\/p>\n
also granted stay because this Court wanted to regulate, <\/p>\n
reform   and   improve   the   functioning   of   SCBA   and   to <\/p>\n
prevent the misuse of various facilities provided by this  <\/p>\n
Court   to   the   regular   members   of     SCBA   so   that   the <\/p>\n
members   of   the   SCBA   render   best   assistance   to   this <\/p>\n
Court in dispensation of justice.   It was also submitted <\/p>\n
that SLP was entertained and operation of the impugned <\/p>\n
interim   order   was   stayed   by   this   Court   to   prevent   the <\/p>\n
interference   of   the   outside   members   in   day-to-day <\/p>\n
functioning   of   SCBA   and   therefore   this   Court   should <\/p>\n
give directions\/frame guidelines to regulate, reform and <\/p>\n
improve the functioning of SCBA.   The learned Counsel <\/p>\n
pointed out that it is no secret that yearly membership <\/p>\n
subscription   fee   of   almost   all   these   non-regular <\/p>\n
members   is   paid   by   candidates   contesting   election   for <\/p>\n
the   various   posts   of   the   Executive   Committee   of   SCBA <\/p>\n
and   the   records   of   SCBA   show   that   hundreds   of   bank <\/p>\n
drafts were issued by the same branch of the same bank <\/p>\n
in   favour   of   SCBA   for   the   same   amount   towards <\/p>\n
subscription   of   SCBA   for   such   non-regular   members <\/p>\n
                                                                 72<\/span><\/p>\n
and   that   some   interested   persons   who   seek   votes   of <\/p>\n
these   non-regular   members   in   the   elections   had   paid <\/p>\n
the   subscription.     This   last   argument   of   Mr.   D.K.Garg <\/p>\n
was endorsed by one and all learned advocates who are <\/p>\n
appearing   in   the   matter.     Thus,   the   learned   advocates <\/p>\n
have   urged   this   Court   to   give   guidelines\/directions   for <\/p>\n
effective implementation of amended rule which projects <\/p>\n
the principle of “One Bar One Vote”.\n<\/p>\n
 37.    This   Court   has   considered   the   request   made   by <\/p>\n
         the  learned Counsel appearing in  the  matter to <\/p>\n
         give   appropriate   directions\/guidelines   for <\/p>\n
         effective  implementation  of  “One  Bar  One  Vote”\n<\/p>\n
         principle enunciated by the amended rule.   It is <\/p>\n
         a   matter   of  common   knowledge   that   this   Court <\/p>\n
         has provided four huge libraries, three canteens, <\/p>\n
         two   lounges,   several   rooms   to   be   used   as <\/p>\n
         consultation   rooms   where   learned   advocates <\/p>\n
         regularly   practicing   in   this   Court   can   consult <\/p>\n
         with   their   clients,   arbitration   rooms,   advocate’s <\/p>\n
         chambers,   huge   parking   places,   free   use   of <\/p>\n
         electricity   supply   etc.,   to   the   members   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                              73<\/span><\/p>\n
SCBA.   It is not in dispute that there are about  <\/p>\n
ten   thousand   members   of   SCBA   at   present <\/p>\n
though           the         actual         number            of <\/p>\n
advocates\/practitioners,   who   are   regularly <\/p>\n
practicing   in   this   Court   is   not   more   than   two <\/p>\n
thousand   five   hundred   out   of   which   there   are <\/p>\n
about nine hundred Advocates-on-Record.   It is <\/p>\n
an   accepted   fact   that   on   the   eve   of   annual <\/p>\n
elections   of   the   Executive   Committee   of   SCBA, <\/p>\n
nearly more than three thousand voters turn up <\/p>\n
from   all   over   India   to   come   to   the   premises   of <\/p>\n
this   Court,   who   are   made   to   vote   by   the <\/p>\n
advocates   seeking   elections   for   various   posts.\n<\/p>\n
Further,   enlistment   of   large   number   of   non-\n<\/p>\n
regular members as members of the SCBA have <\/p>\n
created   problems   in   allotment   of   chambers   for <\/p>\n
this   Court   and   it   has   been   found   that   large <\/p>\n
number   of   non-regular   members   of   SCBA   eats <\/p>\n
up the quota of regular members who genuinely <\/p>\n
need   the   chambers.     It   was   pointed   by   Shri <\/p>\n
Sushil   Kumar   Jain,   the   learned   President   of <\/p>\n
                                                        74<\/span><\/p>\n
Supreme            Court          Advocates-on-Record <\/p>\n
Association   that   many   of   the   non-regular <\/p>\n
members   who   are   allotted   chambers   are   not <\/p>\n
even residing in or around Delhi.   The Supreme <\/p>\n
Court   Advocates-on-Record   are   advocates <\/p>\n
primarily   practicing   in   the   Supreme   Court   and <\/p>\n
are directly affected by the functioning of SCBA <\/p>\n
primary   object   of   which   is   to   look   after   the <\/p>\n
interest   of   advocates   actually   practicing   in   the <\/p>\n
Supreme   Court.     There   is   no   manner   of   doubt <\/p>\n
that   Advocates-on-Record   form   an   important <\/p>\n
constituent   of   the   SCBA.     All   members   of   the <\/p>\n
Supreme            Court          Advocates-on-Record <\/p>\n
Association  are  also  members of the  SCBA and <\/p>\n
because   of   malpractices   committed   by   the <\/p>\n
candidates   who   contest   the   elections   a   large <\/p>\n
number   of   advocates   who   are   not   regular <\/p>\n
practitioners in the Supreme Court have become <\/p>\n
members of SCBA and claim a right, not only to <\/p>\n
vote   and   elect   the   office   bearers   of   the <\/p>\n
Association but also seek to be elected as office <\/p>\n
                                                           75<\/span><\/p>\n
bearers themselves on the strength and support <\/p>\n
of   such   non-regular   members.     Because   such <\/p>\n
non-regular  members have  become members  of <\/p>\n
SCBA,   they   claim   facilities   which   are   being <\/p>\n
extended   to   members   of   SCBA,   who   are <\/p>\n
regularly   practicing   in   this   Court.     Because   of <\/p>\n
such   claims,   clashes,   had   taken   place   in   the <\/p>\n
past.     It   has   been   pointed   out   by   Mr.   Sushil <\/p>\n
Kumar   Jain,   learned   President   of   Supreme <\/p>\n
Court   Advocates-on-Record   Association   that   by <\/p>\n
merely   becoming   members   of   the   SCBA   some <\/p>\n
advocates   deem   themselves   to   be   advocates   of <\/p>\n
the   Supreme   Court   and   fleece   litigants   on   that <\/p>\n
basis.     According   to   Shri   Sushil   Kumar   Jain <\/p>\n
such   advocates   call   themselves   as   Supreme <\/p>\n
Court   Advocates   and   write\/mention   such   a <\/p>\n
status on their letter heads, visiting cards, name <\/p>\n
plates,   etc.   misleading   the   litigants.     As   rightly <\/p>\n
pointed out by the learned counsel Mr. P.P. Rao, <\/p>\n
enrolment   of   advocates   not   practicing   regularly <\/p>\n
in   the   Supreme   Court   is   inconsistent   with   the <\/p>\n
                                                                   76<\/span><\/p>\n
 main aim and object of the SCBA, no court can <\/p>\n
 provide   chambers   or   other   facilities   for   such <\/p>\n
 outside   advocates,   who   are   not   regular <\/p>\n
 practitioners.     Neither   the   SCBA   nor   the   court <\/p>\n
 can deal with them effectively if they commit any <\/p>\n
 wrong.  The power of this Court to make certain <\/p>\n
 rules,   regulations   and   give   directions   to   fill   up <\/p>\n
 the   vacuum   till   such   time   appropriate   steps   in <\/p>\n
 order   to   cover   the   gap   are   taken,   is   recognized <\/p>\n
 and upheld in several reported decisions of this <\/p>\n
 Court.     In  Vineet   Narain  Vs.  Union   of   India <\/p>\n
 (1998)   1   SCC   226  this   Court   has   observed   as <\/p>\n
 under in Paragraph 51 of the reported decision:-\n<\/p>\n
“In   exercise   of   the   powers   of   this   Court <\/p>\n
under   Article   32   read   with   Article   142, <\/p>\n
guidelines   and   directions   have   been   issued <\/p>\n
in   a   large   number   of     cases   and   a   brief <\/p>\n
reference   to   a   few   of   them   is   sufficient.     In <\/p>\n
Erach   Sam   Kanga   Etc.   Vs,  Union   of   India, <\/p>\n
(Writ   Petition   No.   2632   of   1978   decided   on <\/p>\n
20th  March,   1979)   the   Constitution   Bench <\/p>\n
laid   down   certain   guidelines   relating   to <\/p>\n
Emigration   Act.     In  Lakshmi   Kant   Pandey <\/p>\n
Vs.  Union of India  (1984) 2 SCC 244, (in re:\n<\/p>\n
Foreign Adoption), guidelines for adoption of <\/p>\n
minor children by foreigners were laid down.\n<\/p>\n
Similarly   in  State   of   West   Bengal   and   Ors.\n<\/p>\n
Etc.   Vs.  Sampat   Lal   and   Ors.   Etc.,   (1985)   1 <\/p>\n
                                                                    77<\/span><\/p>\n
        SCC 317,  K. Veeraswami  Vs.  Union of India  <\/p>\n
        and   Others,  (1991)   3   SCC   655,  Union  <\/p>\n
        Carbide Corporation and Others Vs. Union of  <\/p>\n
        India   and   others,   (1991)   4   SCC   584,  Delhi  <\/p>\n
        Judicial  Service Association  Etc.  Vs.  State  of  <\/p>\n
        Gujarat   and   others   Etc.   (Nadiad   Case), <\/p>\n
        (1991)   4   SCC   406,          Delhi   Development  <\/p>\n
        Authority  Vs.  Skipper   Construction   Co.   (P)  <\/p>\n
        Ltd.   and   Another,  (1996)   4   SCC   622   and <\/p>\n
        Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. and Others Vs. Union of  <\/p>\n
        India   and   others       [1997]   4   SCC   306, <\/p>\n
        guidelines   were   laid   down   having   the   effect <\/p>\n
        of   law,   requiring   rigid   compliance.     In <\/p>\n
        Supreme           Court         Advocates-on-Record  <\/p>\n
        Association   and   Others  Vs.  Union   of   India  <\/p>\n
        (IInd   Judges   case),   (1993)   4   SCC   441,   a <\/p>\n
        Nine-Judge Bench laid down guidelines and <\/p>\n
        norms   for   the   appointment   and   transfer   of <\/p>\n
        Judges   which   are   being   rigidly   followed   in <\/p>\n
        the   matter   of   appointments   of   High   Court <\/p>\n
        and   Supreme  Court  Judges and   transfer  of <\/p>\n
        High   Court   Judges.     More   recently   in <\/p>\n
        Vishakha and Others  Vs.  State  of Rajasthan  <\/p>\n
        and   others,   (1997)   6   SCC   241,   elaborate <\/p>\n
        guidelines   have   been   laid   down   for <\/p>\n
        observance in work places relating to sexual <\/p>\n
        harassment of working women.”\n<\/p>\n
Moreover, this Court, has framed Supreme Court Rules, <\/p>\n
1966 in exercise of powers under Article 145(1)(a) of the <\/p>\n
Constitution regulating amongst other things advocates <\/p>\n
who   are   entitled   to   practice   in   this   Court.     Further, <\/p>\n
necessary   directions\/guidelines   can   always   be   issued <\/p>\n
when   facilities   and   privileges   are   conferred   on   the <\/p>\n
                                                                  78<\/span><\/p>\n
members   of   the   SCBA.     Thus   not   only   power   to   give <\/p>\n
necessary   guidelines\/directions   is   available   under <\/p>\n
Articles 136, 142, 145(1)(a) of the Constitution but such <\/p>\n
power can also be exercised as “Grantor” of the benefits <\/p>\n
and privileges which are enjoyed by the members of the <\/p>\n
SCBA  to  restore  its  dignity.    Having  regard  to  the   over <\/p>\n
all   conditions   prevailing   in   SCBA,   this   Court   proposes <\/p>\n
to give appropriate directions for implementation of the <\/p>\n
amended rule which  projects the  principle of “One Bar <\/p>\n
One Vote”.\n<\/p>\n
38.    Having   given   thoughtful   consideration   to   the <\/p>\n
       suggestions   made   by   the   learned   counsel <\/p>\n
       appearing   in   the   matter,   this   Court   is   of   the <\/p>\n
       opinion   that   to   identify   regular   practitioners   the <\/p>\n
       criteria   adopted   by   this   Court   for   allotment   of <\/p>\n
       chambers,   as   explained   in  Vinay   Balchandra <\/p>\n
       Joshi  Vs.  Registrar General of Supreme Court <\/p>\n
       of   India  (1998)   7   SCC   461  at   pages   465-467 <\/p>\n
       para 7, should be directed to be adopted by SCBA <\/p>\n
       from   time   to   time.     Shri   K.K.   Venugopal,   the <\/p>\n
       learned   senior   counsel   has   annexed   a   copy   of <\/p>\n
                                                              79<\/span><\/p>\n
Allotment   of   Lawyers’   Chambers   Rules,   as <\/p>\n
amended   up   to   November   30,   2007,   with   his <\/p>\n
written   submissions,   wherein   detailed   procedure <\/p>\n
for   allotment   of   chambers   and   conditions <\/p>\n
precedent   to   be   satisfied   before   a   chamber   is <\/p>\n
allotted, are laid down.  Under the circumstances <\/p>\n
this   Court   directs   under   Article   136   of   the <\/p>\n
Constitution   read   with   Article   142   of   the <\/p>\n
Constitution   that   criteria   adopted   by   this   Court <\/p>\n
for   allotment   of   chambers,   as   mentioned   in <\/p>\n
Allotment   of   Lawyers’   Chambers   Rules,   and   as <\/p>\n
explained   in  Vinay   Balchandra   Joshi   (supra) <\/p>\n
shall   be   adopted   by   the   SCBA   and   its   office <\/p>\n
bearers   to   identify   regular   practitioners   in   this <\/p>\n
Court.     To   identify   regular   practitioners   in   this <\/p>\n
Court,   it   would   be   open   to   the   office   bearers   of <\/p>\n
SCBA   or   a   small   committee,   which   may   be <\/p>\n
appointed by the SCBA consisting of three senior <\/p>\n
advocates,   to   collect   information   about   those <\/p>\n
members   who   had   contested   election   in   any   of <\/p>\n
the   Court   annexed   Bar   Association,   viz.,   High <\/p>\n
                                                           80<\/span><\/p>\n
Court   Bar   Association,   District   Court   Bar <\/p>\n
Association,   Taluka   Bar   Association,   Tribunal <\/p>\n
Bar      Association         and      Quasi-judicial      Bar <\/p>\n
Associations like BIFR, AIFR, CAT, etc. from 2005 <\/p>\n
to 2010.  If such an information is sought by the  <\/p>\n
office   bearers   of   SCBA   or   the   Committee <\/p>\n
appointed   by   it,   the   same   shall   be   supplied <\/p>\n
invariably and without fail by the Court annexed <\/p>\n
Bar   Associations   mentioned   earlier.                The <\/p>\n
committee   of   SCBA   to   be   appointed   is   hereby <\/p>\n
directed   to   prepare   a   list   of   regular   members <\/p>\n
practicing in this Court and another separate list <\/p>\n
of members not regularly practicing in this Court <\/p>\n
and third list of temporary members of the SCBA.\n<\/p>\n
These lists are directed to be put up on the SCBA <\/p>\n
website   and   also   on   the   SCBA   notice   board.     A <\/p>\n
letter is directed to be sent by the SCBA to each  <\/p>\n
member of SCBA informing him about his status <\/p>\n
of   membership   on   or   before   February   28,   2012.\n<\/p>\n
The aggrieved member would be entitled to make <\/p>\n
a representation within 15 days from the date of <\/p>\n
                                                                      81<\/span><\/p>\n
        receipt   of   letter   from   the   S.C.B.A.   to   the <\/p>\n
        Committee, which is to be appointed by the SCBA <\/p>\n
        to identify regular practitioners stating in writing, <\/p>\n
        whether personal hearing before the Committee is <\/p>\n
        required   or   not.     If   such   a   request   is   made   the <\/p>\n
        concerned   member   shall   be   heard   by   the <\/p>\n
        Committee.           The   representation\/s   shall   be <\/p>\n
        considered   and   the   decision   would   be   rendered <\/p>\n
        thereon by the aforesaid Committee on or before <\/p>\n
        April   30,   2012.     The   decision   of   that   Committee <\/p>\n
        shall be communicated to the member concerned <\/p>\n
        but   the   decision   shall   be   final,   conclusive   and <\/p>\n
        binding on the member of the SCBA.  Thereafter, <\/p>\n
        final   list   of   regular   practitioners   of   this   Court <\/p>\n
        shall be displayed by S.C.B.A.\n<\/p>\n
        After   preparation   of   the   final   list   of   the   regular <\/p>\n
practitioners,   each   member   shall   give   a   written <\/p>\n
intimation   to   the   S.C.B.A.   whether   he   is   a   member   of <\/p>\n
another Court annexed Bar.  It shall be mandatory for a <\/p>\n
member, whose name is included in the said list, to give <\/p>\n
a permanent declaration that he would vote only in the <\/p>\n
                                                                        82<\/span><\/p>\n
SCBA and would not vote in any of the elections of any <\/p>\n
High   Court   Bar  Association   or  District  Bar   Association <\/p>\n
or   Taluka   Bar   Association   or   Tribunal   Bar   Association <\/p>\n
or Quasi-judicial Bar Associations like BIFR, AIFR, CAT, <\/p>\n
etc.        A   copy   of   this   declaration   shall   be   put <\/p>\n
up\/displayed on the website of the SCBA as well as on  <\/p>\n
the   notice   board   of   the   SCBA.     The   information   about <\/p>\n
having   filed   such   a   declaration   shall  be   sent   to   all   the <\/p>\n
Bar Associations where the said advocate is a member.\n<\/p>\n
Once such a declaration has been given, it will be valid <\/p>\n
till it is revoked and once it is revoked a member shall <\/p>\n
forfeit   his   right   to   vote   or   contest   any   election   to   any <\/p>\n
post to be conducted by the SCBA, for a period of three <\/p>\n
years from the date of revocation.\n<\/p>\n
39.       The members of the SCBA, whose names do not <\/p>\n
          figure   in   the   final   list   of   regular   practitioners, <\/p>\n
          shall not be entitled to either vote at an election <\/p>\n
          of the office bearers of the SCBA or to contest any  <\/p>\n
          of the posts for which elections would be held by <\/p>\n
          the S.C.B.A.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   83<\/span><\/p>\n
40.    This   Court   suggests   that   to   ensure   strict <\/p>\n
       compliance   with   the   directions   issued   by   this <\/p>\n
       judgment,          an         Implementation         Committee <\/p>\n
       consisting of three learned senior advocates may <\/p>\n
       be   constituted.     The   SCBA   has   suggested   that <\/p>\n
       Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior advocate, Mr. <\/p>\n
       P.P. Rao, learned senior advocate and Mr. Ranjit <\/p>\n
       Kumar,   learned   senior   advocate,   practicing   in <\/p>\n
       this  Court   be   appointed   as   members  of   the   said <\/p>\n
       Implementation   Committee.                  This   Court <\/p>\n
       recommends   that   the   names   of   three   learned <\/p>\n
       senior counsel mentioned above be considered by <\/p>\n
       the SCBA for being appointed as members of the <\/p>\n
       said   Committee   subject   to   their   consent   and <\/p>\n
       convenience.\n<\/p>\n
41.    In view of the findings that the amendment made <\/p>\n
       in Rule 18 is legal and valid and that no right of <\/p>\n
       the   advocates,   who   have   filed   the   suits,   is <\/p>\n
       infringed or is violated, this Court directs the trial <\/p>\n
       court   to   take   up   the   two   suits   immediately   for <\/p>\n
       hearing and to dismiss\/ dispose of the two suits <\/p>\n
                                                              84<\/span><\/p>\n
       pending on its file in the light of the observations <\/p>\n
       made by this Court in this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
42.    Subject   to   above   mentioned   directions,   the   two <\/p>\n
       appeals stand disposed of.\n<\/p>\n
                                  ………………………………J.\n<\/p>\n
                             (J.M. PANCHAL)<\/p>\n
                                 ……………………………….J.\n<\/p>\n
                                  (H.L. GOKHALE)<\/p>\n
New Delhi;\n<\/p>\n
September 26, 2011.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Supreme Court Bar Association & … vs B.D. Kaushik on 26 September, 2011 Bench: J.M. Panchal, H.L. Gokhale 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. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-105371","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court Bar Association & ... vs B.D. Kaushik on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court Bar Association & ... vs B.D. Kaushik on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-05T13:56:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"70 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Supreme Court Bar Association & … vs B.D. Kaushik on 26 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-05T13:56:57+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":13919,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Supreme Court Bar Association & ... vs B.D. Kaushik on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-05T13:56:57+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Supreme Court Bar Association & … vs B.D. Kaushik on 26 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court Bar Association & ... vs B.D. Kaushik on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court Bar Association & ... vs B.D. Kaushik on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-05T13:56:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"70 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Supreme Court Bar Association & … vs B.D. Kaushik on 26 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-05T13:56:57+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011"},"wordCount":13919,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011","name":"Supreme Court Bar Association & ... vs B.D. Kaushik on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-05T13:56:57+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/supreme-court-bar-association-vs-b-d-kaushik-on-26-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court Bar Association & … vs B.D. Kaushik on 26 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105371","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105371"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105371\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105371"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}