High CourtDivision Bench2012-08-16Partly allowed

Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors. v. B. D. Kaushik

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal Nos. 3401 & 3402 of 2003

Neutral Citation:[2012] 7 S.C.R. 287

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Altamas Kabir
J. Chelameswar
Judgment Date: 2012-08-16
Court Decision / Holding: IA No.6 filed by the applicants is Partly Allowed. Paragraph 14 of the 20 July 2012 judgment is modified to include the words And the SCAORA after the words other than the SCBA, thereby extending the exclusion to SCAORA; the modification applies to the stated lines in paragraph 14. Regarding the number of annual filings, no modification is required at this stage. The order clarifies the uniform application of the One Bar One Vote principle and related entry regime.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Supreme Court Bar Association
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association

Respondents

B. D. Kaushik

Case Synopsis & Summary

This judgment concerns the interpretation of the One Bar One Vote principle governing elections to the executive committee of court annexed Bar Associations. The Supreme Court, in a July 20, 2012 order, laid down an eligibility rule that persons who had contested elections or cast votes in elections to any court annexed Bar Association's executive committee, during 2007 to 2012, could not vote to elect the Office Bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) or attend its General Body meetings. In IA No. 6, the Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association sought clarification and modification of that judgment to correct a perceived omission. It was contended that the earlier order had inadvertently failed to exclude the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) from the same bar, thereby affecting the scope of the exclusion. The respondents supported the application for clarification. The Court accepted the suggestion, and modified paragraph 14 of the 20 July 2012 judgment by incorporating the words And the SCAORA after the words other than the SCBA, thus extending the exclusion to SCAORA. With respect to the other prayer regarding the number of annual filings, the Court held no modification was required at this stage. IA No. 6 was partly allowed, leaving other aspects intact. The decision clarifies the uniform application of the voting restriction and the accompanying proximity card regime.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

One Bar One Vote

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Applicants submit that the judgment of July 20, 2012 introduced the One Bar One Vote principle and specified that individuals who had contested elections or cast votes in elections to any Court annexed Bar Association outside the SCBA during 2007–2012 should not participate in SCBA elections or attend its General Body meetings. They contend that the text inadvertently omitted the inclusion of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) in the exclusion. The applicants therefore sought clarification and modification of paragraph 14 to expressly include SCAORA within the scope of the exclusion, ensuring uniform application across bodies. They maintain that the omission was purely inadvertent and that excluding SCAORA is essential to preserve the integrity of the SCBA elections and the one bar one vote objective. They further contend that the issue of the number of entries into the Supreme Court High Security Zone, as discussed in paragraph 9, need not be reopened, since the proximity card regime will continue to govern reporting of entries for all advocates and SCBA members. They urged the Court to modify the judgment accordingly by IA No. 6 to prevent any misapplication of the rule and to avoid inconsistent practice.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents submit that the application seeks clarity and consistency in applying the One Bar One Vote principle. They acknowledge the omission was inadvertent and agree that SCAORA should be treated in the same manner as SCBA with respect to disqualification from voting or attending General Body meetings if they had contested elections or cast votes in elections to any Court annexed Bar Association during 2007–2012. They support including SCAORA in the exclusion to avoid fragmentation of the policy and urge that the modification clarify the inclusion of SCAORA without reopening other aspects of the judgment. They contend the proximity card regime and the security-entry provisions should remain as currently applied, and that the change will not prejudice other parties, given broad acceptance of the proposed clarification.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors. v. B. D. Kaushik and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## [2012] 7 S.C.R. 287 SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. _v._ A ## B.D. KAUSHIK I.A. No.6 IN (Civil Appeal Nos. 3401 of 2003 etc.) B AUGUST 16, 2012 **[ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR,** JJ.] ## _BAR_ ASSOC/A _TION:_ c - _Supreme Court Bar Association Eligibility of Members_ - _to contest and vote at the election to Executive Committee_ - - _"ONE BAR ONE VOTE" principle Applicability of Order of Supreme Court dated 20. 7.2012[1 ]_ - _Modified to the effect that_ D _the person who had contested elections or had cast his vote in an election to the Executive Committee of any court annexed Bar Association other than Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and Supreme Court Advocates-onRecord Association (SCA ORA) during any of the years 2007 to 2012 could not be allowed to vote to elect the office bearers_ E _of the SCBA or to attend the General Body meeting of the SCBA._ ## CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : I.A. No. 6. IN F Civil Appeal No. 3401 & 3402 of 2003. From the Judgment & Order dated 05.04.2003 of the Civil Judge, Delhi in Civil Suit Nos. 100 & 101 of 2003. G Ranjit Kumar, Dinesh Dwivedi, Sushil K. Jain, Atulesh Kumar, Chanda 8. Prasad, Arun Kumar, Narendra Kumar, 1. Supreme Court Bar Association and Ors. vs. B.D. Kaushik 2012 SCR. 287 H ## 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. - A Ranjit l<r. Sharma, Milind Kumar, Tripurari Ray, Ravi Shankar Kumar, B.K. Choudhary, Yuga! Kishore Prasad, Rajesh Ranjan Rajesh , Parmanand Pandey, Rajesh Aggarwal, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Jitender Mohan Sharma, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Nitin - . Kumar Thakur, [Caveator-in-person] for the appearing parties. B The Order of the Court was delivered ## **ORDER** 1. l.A.No.6 has been filed on behalf of the Supreme Court c Bar Association and Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association, through its Secretary, Mrs. B.Sunita Rao, advocate, for clarification and modification of the judgment/ order dated 20th July, 2012, wherein, while considering the application filed by the SCBA(l.A. No.5 of 2011), certain 0[suggestions made ][by ][the Implementation Committee had been ] accepted. 2. Appearing in support of the said application, copies of which have been served on all the interested parties, including the members of the Implementation Committee, represented E by Mr. P.P. Rao and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior advocates, Mr. Sushi! Kumar Jain, learned advocate submitted that one omission appears to have been made in paragraph 14 of the judgment, wherein while considering the principle of ONE BAR ONE VOTE, we had indicated that persons who had F contested elections to the Executive Committee of any Court annexed Bar Association, other than the SCBA, during any of the years from 2007 to 2012, could not be allowed to vote to elect the Office Bearers of the SCBA on the aforesaid principle, or to attend the General Body meetings of the SCBA. It was G further mentioned that the same would also include a person who had cast his vote in any election to the Executive Committee of any Court annexed Bar Association, other than the SCBA, for the above-mentioned years. It has been pointed out by Mr. Jain that through inadvertence, the Supreme Court H Advocate-on-Record Association had not been excluded, SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. _v._ 289 B.D. KAUSHIK although, it formed an integral part of the SCBA. A 3. The suggestion is well taken and accepted by all the interested parties represented by learned counsel, and, accordingly, we modify paragraph 14 of the said judgment dated 20th July, 2012, by including the words "AND THE 8 SCAORA" after the words "OTHER THAN THE SCBA" appearing at lines 3 and 4 of the paragraph and also after the same words appearing in line 11 of the said paragraph. Let the said paragraph be modified and read accordingly. 4. As far as the other prayer made on behalf of the C applicant is concerned, with regard to the number of filings in a year, as indicated in paragraph 9 of the judgment, we are convinced that since all advocates and members of the SCBA will be covered by the number of entries into the Supreme Court High Security Zone by the Proximity Card, the same o does not require any modification at this stage. 5. l.A.6 filed in the disposed of appeal(s) is allowed to the aforesaid extent. R.P. I.A. Partly allowed. E