SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. versus B.D. KAUSHIK

Citation: [2012] 6 S.C.R. 999 · Decided: 20-07-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 6 S.C.R. 999 
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. 
A 
v. 
B.D. KAUSHIK 
I.A. No. 5 of 2012 
IN 
I.A. No. 1 of 2011 
B 
IN 
Civil Appeal Nos. 3401 & 3402 of 2003 
JULY 20, 2012 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
C 
Advocates - Election of office bearers of Supreme Court 
Bar Association (SCBA) - Eligibility of the members of SCBA 
to elect·- Direction of Supreme court to identify the members 
of SCBA who were regular practitioners in Supreme Court as 
D 
they alone would be eligible to vote to elect the office bearers 
of SCBA - Pursuant to the direction, Implementation 
Committee laying down criteria for identification of members 
regularly practising in Supreme Court - Dispute regarding the 
criteria - Interlocutory Application seeking clarification and 
E 
directions in respect of the criteria evolved by Implementation 
Committee - Held: Various suggestions made by the 
Implementation Committee for the purpose of identifying 
members of SCBA, regularly practising in Supreme Court, 
accepted - Direction to the members ofthe Implementation 
Committee to modify the criteria in the light of the suggestions 
accepted by the Court. 
F 
The Supreme Court, in the present appeals while 
determining interalia the question regarding eligibility of 
the members of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) 
G 
to elect the office bearers of the Association, issued 
various directions on the basis of the principle of 'One Bar 
one Vote' and called upon to device a mechanism to 
identify the members of SCBA who practiced regularly 
999 
H 
1000 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 6 S.C.R. 
A before Supreme Court and those members alone would 
be entitled to vote to elect the office bearers of SCBA. 
The Court further directed to appoint a Committee to 
identify the regular practitioners of Supreme Court and 
to prepare a list of members regularly practicing, not 
B regularly practising in Supreme Court and list of 
temporary members of SCBA and to post these lists on 
SCBA website and SCBA Notice Board. 
Pursuant to the direction of the Court, an 
Implementation Committee consisting of senior 
C advocates practicing in Supreme Court, was constituted. 
Certain disputes arose between the members of SCBA 
regarding the criteria laid down by the Implementation 
Committee for identification of members regul~rly 
practicing in Supreme Court. Therefore, instant 
D Interlocutory Application was filed by SCBA seeking 
clarification and directions with regard to the criteria 
evolved by the Implementation Committee. 
Disposing of the application, the court 
E 
HELD: 1. Certain suggestions need to be taken into 
consideration which were made by the Implementation 
Committee, while identifying the members of the SCBA 
who were regularly practicing in the Supreme Court for 
the purpose of determining their eligibility to vote to elect 
F the office bearers of the SCBA. [Para 8) (1007-H; 1008-A) 
2. The first criteria laid down by the Implementation 
Committee that all the members of the SCBA who had 50 
appearances and/or 20 filings in a year, should be 
G considered to be regular practitioners in the Supreme 
Court, is duly accepted. [Para 9) [1008-B-C] 
3. Suggestion to include advocates, who have been 
continuously representing the State Governments or the 
H Union Government before the Supreme Court for at least 
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS. v. 
1001 
B.D. KAUSHIK 
three years and have a minimum of 50 appearances for 
A 
such Government, in the category of regular practitioners 
with right to vote, is accepted. [Para 9] [1008-B-C, E] 
4. Suggestion to include Advocates, who were 
Government Standing Counsel or counsel appearing for 
8 
the Government in the Supreme Court and all Advocates-
on-Record in the said category, is accepted. [Para 9] 
[1008-C-D] 
5. Suggestion to include non-Advocates-on-Record 
who were in the panel of Amicus Curiae, approved by the 
C 
Supreme Court Registry, and members who are working 
as Mediators in the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, is 
also accepted. [Para 9] [1008-D-E] 
6. Suggestion was made for inclusion of all Senior 0 
Advocates of the Supreme Court, who are resident in 
Delhi and attending the Supreme Court. It was rightly 
pointed out that in view of the close proximity of the 
satellite townships, which had grown up around Delhi, 
such Senior Advocates who resided in Noida, Gurgaon, 
Faridabad and Ghaziabad, should also be included in this 
E 
category. The said suggestion is sound a

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