[2012] 7 S.C.R. 287
SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION & ORS.
A
v.
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. 7.20121 - 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-on-
Record 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
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.
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
F
G
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
Lex