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

Citation: [2011] 15 S.C.R. 736 · Decided: 26-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 736 
A 
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS 
B 
v. 
B.D. KAUSHIK 
(CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3401 OF 2003) 
SEPTEMBER 26, 2011 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 
2 r/w s.151 - Rules and Regulations of Supreme Court Bar 
C Association (SCBA) - Eligibility of the members to contest 
and vote at the SCBA elections -Amended rule - Validity of 
- In the General Body Meeting of SCBA, convened on 
February 18, 2003, resolution proposing amendment in Rule 
18 of the Rules and Regulations of the SCBA projecting the 
o principle of "One Bar One Vote" was put to vote and was 
passed by majority - Respondents, two members of the 
SCBA, filed civil suits challenging the validity of the resolution 
- They also filed applications u/Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 rlw 
s.151 of CPC to restrain the defendants-appellants from 
E implementing the said Resolution till final disposal of the 
suits - Civil Judge allowed the applications by an interim 
order - Interim order challenged - Held: The concept of 
voting introduced by amendment of Rule 18 of the Rules and 
Regulations of the SCBA cannot be regarded as illegal or 
F unconstitutional - The right to vote is not an absolute right -
Right to vote or to contest election is neither a Fundamental 
Right nor a common law right, but it is purely a statutory right 
governed by statute/ rules/regulations - The right to contest 
an election and to vote can always be restricted or abridged, 
if statute/ rules or regulations prescribe so - In the case on 
G hand, it cannot be said that limitations/ restrictions on the 
exercise of right to vote and contest the elections amounted 
to altering and/or amending and/ or changing Aims and 
Objects of the SCBA - The impugned Rule only prescribed 
the eligibility or made a person ineligible in the circumstances 
H 
736 
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 
737 
B.D. KAUSHIK 
stated therein which was in the nature of a reasonable A 
restriction - The restriction on the right to vote of a member 
was provided with an avowed object of better welfare and 
convenience of those advocates, who are regularly practicing 
in Supreme Court and who are directly concerned with its day-
to-day affairs - Such restriction in fact subserves Article 145 
8 
of the Constitution and other statutory provisions relating to 
advocates - The provision in the SCBA Rules for prescribing 
eligibility to vote at only one of the associations, i.e., "One Bar 
One Vote" was a prescription which was in furtherance of the 
right to form association and be able to manage the affairs C 
of the association by those who regularly practice in the courts 
of which the association is formed and of which the members 
are regular practitioners - The amended Rule 18 did not take 
away right to vote completely but put restrictions to promote 
and protect the privileges, interest and prestige of the SCBA 
0 
- Rule 18 was also amended to promote and maintain high 
standards of profession amongst Members of the Bar -
Having regard to the objects of amendment of Rule 18, it is 
clear that the Civil Judge should not have granted the 
injunction as claimed by the plaintiffs/respondents for mere 
asking - The amendment made in Rule 18 was legal and E 
valid and no right of the advocates, who filed the suits, was 
infringed or was violated - Guidelines/directions given by 
Supreme Court for effective implementation of the amended 
rule - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - s. 12 - Constitution 
of India, 1950 - Arts. 136, 142 and 145. 
F 
Advocates/Legal Profession - Bar Association - Purpose 
of - Held: A Bar Association in a court is formed for the 
purpose of seeing that all lawyers practicing normally and 
regularly in that court work under one umbrella and be in a 
position to interact with the Judges or officials of that court for G 
any grievance through their elected bocfy because individual 
lawyers are not supposed nor it is proper for them to interact 
with the Judges so as to preserve and secure the 
independence of judiciary. 
H 
738 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
Interim order - Held: Interim relief, which has tendency 
to allow the final relief claimed in the proceedings, should not 
be granted lightly. 
Appellant no.1-Supreme Court Bar Association 
(SCBA) is a Society registered under the Societies 
8 Registration Act, 1860 having its Registered Office in the 
Supreme Court premises at New Del

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.