SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION vs. B.D. KAUSHIK

REPORTABL E

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. NO.1 OF 2012 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3401 OF 2003 Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors. … Appellants Vs. B.D. Kaushik … Respondent WITH I.A. NO.1 OF 2012 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3402 2003 OF AND JUDGMENT CONT. PET. (C) NO.45 OF 2012 IN C.A. NOs.3401 & 3402 OF 2003 J U D G M E N T ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Page 1 2 1. I.A. No.1 of 2012 has been filed by the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association (SCAORA) in Civil Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003, th which were disposed of on 26 September, 2011, and form the genesis of the events leading to the filing of the said application. It has been a painful experience for us to have had to hear this matter as it involves two sections of the Supreme Court Bar Association whose unbecoming posturing has cast dark shadows on the functioning of the Bar Association even in the eyes of the general public and the litigants who throng the Supreme Court each day for their cases. JUDGMENT 2. While Civil Appeal No.3401 of 2003 was filed by three Appellants, namely, (i) Supreme Court Bar Association (Regd.) through its Honorary Secretary, Mr. Ashok Arora; (ii) Mr. Ashok Arora in his capacity as the Honorary Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association; and (iii) Ms. Sunita B. Rao, Page 2 3 Coordinator, Implementation Committee, Supreme Court Bar Association, (hereinafter referred to as “SCBA”), on the other hand, Civil Appeal No.3402 of 2003 has been filed by the Supreme Court Bar Association through its Honorary Secretary. Both the Appeals are directed against the interim order th dated 5 April, 2003, passed by the learned Civil Judge on an application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed in Civil Suit Nos.100 and 101 of 2003. By the common order, the Appellants were restrained from implementing the Resolution dated February 18, 2003, amending Rule JUDGMENT 18 of the Rules and Regulations of SCBA till the final disposal of both the suits. While Shri B.D. Kaushik is the sole Respondent in Civil Appeal No.3401 of 2003, Shri A.K. Manchanda is the sole Respondent in Civil Appeal No.3402 of 2003. Both the Respondents are Advocates who are practising in Delhi and are Members of the SCBA, the Delhi Bar Page 3 4

Page 4 5 such a Member, would be identified as a temporary Member who would be entitled to avail the facilities of the Association, such as library and canteen, but would not have a right to participate in general meetings, as prescribed in Rule 21 or to contest and vote at the elections, as provided in Rule 18. rd 4. On 23 January, 2003, the Office of the SCBA th received a requisition dated 10 January, 2003, signed by 343 Members seeking an amendment to Rule 18 regarding the eligibility of the Members to contest and vote at an election. It was proposed JUDGMENT that the Member, who exercised his right to vote in any High Court or District Court Advocates/Bar Association, would not be eligible to contest for any post of the SCBA or to cast his vote at the th elections. The said requisition dated 10 January, 2003, was considered in the meeting of the st Executive Committee of the SCBA on 1 February, Page 5 6 2003 and a decision was taken to hold a Special th General Body Meeting on 18 February, 2003, to consider the requisition. It appears that notice for the said General Body Meeting was issued by the th SCBA on 6 February, 2003, and copies of the same were sent to the Members along with the cause list. The notice was also displayed on the Notice Board of the office of the SCBA situated in the Supreme Court premises. The notices were also sent to different Bar Associations at Delhi, including the th Delhi Bar Association. On 18 February, 2003, the General Body Meeting was convened in which 278 Members participated. Some of the Members of the JUDGMENT Association had spoken against the requisition, but when the Resolution proposing the amendment in Rule 18 of the Rules was put to vote, it was passed by a majority of 85% of the Members present and voting. Subsequently, at a meeting of the Executive rd Committee convened on 3 March, 2003, a Resolution was adopted to hold election of the Office Bearers Page 6 7 for the next session and for the constitution of th the Election Committee on 25 April, 2003. An Election Committee of three Members of the SCBA was constituted for the purpose of conducting the election. In the said meeting, a requisition signed by 237 Members of the SCBA to recall the th Resolution dated 18 February, 2003, was taken up for consideration, but deferred on account of the fact that the elections had been declared. Moreover, in the meeting of the Executive Committee th held on 10 March, 2003, it was resolved to constitute an Implementation Committee to implement the Resolution of “One Bar One Vote”, which was JUDGMENT th adopted in the General Body Meeting of 18 February, 2003. 5. The apparent differences, which have surfaced between the two groups of Members within the SCBA, resulted in Mr. B.D. Kaushik filing Suit No.100 of 2003 in the Court of Shri Sanjeev Jain, Commercial Page 7 8 Civil Judge, Delhi, challenging the validity of the Resolution adopted by the Executive Committee of th the SCBA on 18 February, 2003. While seeking a decree for a declaration that the Resolution dated th 18 February, 2003, was illegal and ineffective, the Plaintiff also prayed for a decree of perpetual injunction to restrain the SCBA and the Office Bearers from implementing the said Resolution dated th 18 February, 2003, in the elections of the SCBA th which were proposed to be held on 25 April, 2003. A further prayer was made to restrain the SCBA from debarring any of the Members of the SCBA who had already paid their subscription from casting their JUDGMENT votes in the elections which were scheduled to be th held on 25 April, 2003. A similar Suit No.101 of 2003 was filed before the same learned Judge by Shri A.K. Manchanda, seeking the same relief as had been sought by Mr. B.D. Kaushik in his Suit No.100 of 2003. Page 8 9 6. As indicated hereinbefore, applications were filed by the Plaintiffs in both the suits under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to restrain the Defendants, who are the Appellants in the two civil th appeals, from implementing the Resolution dated 18 February, 2003, till the final disposal of the th suits. By a common order dated 5 April, 2003, the learned Judge allowed the two applications filed for injunction and restrained the Appellants herein th from implementing the Resolution dated 18 February, 2003, amending Rule 18 of the Rules and Regulations of the SCBA, till the final disposal of JUDGMENT the suits. 7. The Supreme Court Bar Association through its Honorary Secretary thereupon filed the two Civil Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003 against the said th common order dated 5 April, 2003, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi. Both the matters were Page 9 10 placed before the Court in the mentioning list of th 10 April, 2003, when the matters were taken on Board and leave was granted. Pending the proceedings, the common order passed by the Trial Court was also stayed. It was also made clear that if any elections were held, the same would be subject to the result of the Appeals. Thereafter, this Court appointed Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court in the two matters. In addition, the Court also requested the learned Attorney General to assist the Court. Accordingly, the Appeals were taken up for hearing in the presence of the Amicus JUDGMENT Curiae, the learned Attorney General, Mr. Rajesh Aggarwal, who appeared on behalf of the Appellants and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, learned Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the original plaintiffs. Since the matter involved the learned Advocates practising in the Supreme Court, the Court also heard senior counsel Mr. P.P. Rao, the former Page 10 11 President of the SCBA, Mr. Pravin Parekh, the present President of the SCBA and Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, the President of SCAORA. The Court also considered the Memorandum of Association of SCBA as well as its Rules and Regulations. 8. During the hearing, one of the more important issues that surfaced was the escalating number of Members of the SCBA to about 10,000 Members, of whom only around 2,000 Members were said to be regularly practising in the Supreme Court. The manner in which the membership was infiltrated was also brought to the notice of the Court and a JUDGMENT definite and deliberate allegation was made that out of the 10,000 Members of the SCBA, not more than 2,000 Members were seen to attend the Supreme Court regularly and the remaining 8,000 Members are seen in the Supreme Court premises only on the day of the SCBA elections. It was alleged that apart from the above, these 8,000 floating members had no Page 11 12

Page 12 13

Page 13 14

Page 14 15

Page 15 16 of the Implementation Committee to implement the directions given by the Hon’ble Judges in Civil Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003. 12. For the purpose of implementing the directions th of this Court contained in the judgment dated 26 September, 2011, the Implementation Committee issued a Questionnaire to all the Members of the SCBA. Furthermore, in order to identify the regular practitioners of the Court, the Implementation Committee adopted certain criteria vide its th Resolution dated 11 January, 2012, and the Members who fulfilled the said criteria were to be treated JUDGMENT as regular practitioners of this Court, along with the 754 Members to whom Chambers had already been allotted or whose names were already included in the approved Waiting List for allotment of Chambers. The Resolution adopted by the th Implementation Committee in its meeting held on 11 January, 2012, is reproduced hereinbelow :- Page 16 17

Page 17 18

Page 18 19

Page 19 20 th 16 January, 2012, apart from the regular practitioners, a large number of persons who were not even members of the SCBA, assembled at the venue of the meeting and obstructed Shri P.H. Parekh, the elected President of the SCBA, from conducting the meeting. 15. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, learned Advocate and the Secretary of the Applicant Association, filed an application for directions, setting out in detail the events of the th General Body Meeting convened on 16 January, 2012, to consider the implementation of the JUDGMENT recommendations of the Implementation Committee. In the said background, the Applicant prayed that th in furtherance of the judgment dated 26 September, 2011, only those Members of the SCBA, whose names would be identified and declared by the Implementation Committee, consisting of Shri K.K. Venugopal, Shri P.P. Rao and Shri Ranjit Kumar, Page 20 21 Senior Advocates, would be entitled to participate in the elections and/or General Body Meeting of the SCBA or to vote either in the election or in the General Body Meeting or to sign any requisition. Among the other prayers was a prayer for a th direction that the meeting held on 16 January, 2012, and the decisions purportedly taken therein, were null and void. A direction was also sought that the Implementation Committee comprised of Shri K.K. Venugopal, Shri P.P. Rao and Shri Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocates, and no other person, should be allowed to complete the task of th implementing the judgment dated 26 September, JUDGMENT 2011. 16. The said two applications were taken up for consideration and extensive submissions were made, both in support of and against the reliefs sought for therein. Page 21 22 17. Appearing on behalf of the Appellant Association, Mr. Ashok Desai, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that the events which occurred th on 16 January, 2012, at the Requisition Meeting convened at the instance of some of the members of the SCBA, were highly condemnable and left much to be desired. Mr. Desai submitted that after Mr. P.H. Parekh, the elected President of the SCBA had been shouted down, it was unceremoniously declared that he had resigned and his resignation from the post of President of the SCBA had been accepted in the meeting by a Resolution said to have been adopted at the meeting itself. Mr. Desai submitted JUDGMENT that seeing the manner in which the meeting was being taken over by a certain section of the persons present at the venue of the meeting, Mr. Parekh requested Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate and a former President of the SCBA, to preside over and conduct the meeting. Mr. Desai further submitted that even Mr. Ram Jethmalani was Page 22 23

Page 23 24

Page 24 25

Page 25 26 meeting of the Executive Committee of the SCBA allegedly held thereafter, Mr. Desai submitted that the said resolutions are per se in disregard of the judgment of this Court in SCBA Vs. B.D. Kaushik and are, therefore, null and void. Mr. Desai also pointed out that the resolution starts by recording that “The Special General Meeting of the SCBA was presided over by Mr. Ram Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate”, but Mr. Ram Jethmalani, who was present in the Court stated that he did not preside over the meeting and he had also expressed his view that everybody should speak in a decorous manner. Mr. Parekh, the President and all concerned parties JUDGMENT should be given a full hearing and all grievances should be ventilated in accordance with law. Mr. Desai submitted that the statement made by Mr. Ram Jethmalani in Court had not been contradicted by anyone. Page 26 27

Page 27 28

Page 28 29 23. Mr. Desai submitted that even Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi and Mr. S.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocates, had, at the very first instance, submitted that Resolution Nos.1 and 4 relating to the decision not to give effect to the judgment of th this Court dated 26 September, 2011, and that all active members of SCBA without any classification would be eligible to vote in the annual elections, could not be defended and submitted that the same be disregarded and treated as withdrawn. Mr. Desai urged that even the decision to expel the three senior members of the SCBA, who had been appointed JUDGMENT as the members of the Implementation Committee, was not only irregular, but in complete violation of the Rules relating to expulsion of members of the SCBA and in breach of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Desai also urged that when the aforesaid resolution was sent to the Vice-President th of the SCBA on 17 January, 2012, the majority of Page 29 30 the members of the Executive Committee by a circular resolution of even date requested him to withdraw the same and on such request being communicated to Mr. Parekh, he withdrew his th resignation on 18 January, 2012. The meeting of th the Executive Committee on 18 January, 2012, was, therefore, wholly unauthorized and all the members of the Executive Committee were so informed by way th of SMS and E-mails dated 18 January, 2012. Mr. Desai submitted that the Minutes of the meeting th held on 18 January, 2012, were unanimously th recalled by the Executive Committee on 19 January, 2012, in their entirety. It was also pointed out JUDGMENT that out of the 21 members, 18 members were present in that meeting of the Executive Committee held on th 19 January, 2012. 24. Mr. Desai further submitted that Rule 35 of the SCBA Rules and Regulations provided for the removal of a member from the SCBA on receipt of a written Page 30 31

Page 31 32

Page 32 33 Confidence’ and also fix the date of holding of the elections of the SCBA in the month of May, 2012. 27. Mr. Desai submitted that the manner in which th the Special General Meeting was held on 16 January, 2012, was highly contumacious and, therefore, void, and was liable to be declared as such. Furthermore, the subsequent notices received for holding Requisition Meetings containing a demand for finalization of the Voters’ List, was completely contrary to the directions given in the th judgment dated 26 September, 2011, particularly, when an illegal resolution was purportedly adopted JUDGMENT expelling the three members of the Implementation Committee from the primary membership of the SCBA. 28. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Advocate, who appeared for the Supreme Court Advocate-on- Record Association, submitted that as far as the maintainability of Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2012 is concerned, there could not be any doubt Page 33 34 that the directions issued under Article 142 of the Constitution are binding upon all, unless they are recalled or set aside in a manner known to law. Mr. Salve submitted that any attempt to defy the directions would empower this Court with jurisdiction to take appropriate action for compelling compliance, including by way of contempt. Mr. Salve submitted that the application had been made in furtherance of the judgment dated th 26 September, 2011, and the underlying object of the application was to uphold the majesty of this Court and to ensure that the directions were duly implemented in the spirit in which they were given. JUDGMENT Mr. Salve submitted that since the resolutions said to have been adopted by the General Body of the th Association on 16 January, 2012, were in defiance of the directions issued by this Court, this Court would always have jurisdiction to deal with such violation or to give further directions for effective implementation thereof. Page 34 35 29. Mr. Salve submitted that the Respondents had themselves accepted that Resolution No.1 was in defiance of the judgment of this Court. As a result, the other Resolutions were a fall-out of Resolution No.1 and could not, therefore, be accepted. Referring to Resolution No.5 relating to Mr. P.H. Parekh’s resignation, Mr. Salve submitted that the same was not part of the agenda for the th meeting held on 16 January, 2012. Mr. Salve submitted that the minutes of the meetings held on th th 16 and 18 January, 2012, lacked credence and acceptability on account of the circumstances in JUDGMENT which they were adopted. 30. On the question of whether the Implementation th Committee acted contrary to the judgment dated 26 September, 2011, Mr. Salve submitted that the Implementation Committee acted in keeping with the guidelines in Vinay Balchandra Joshi ’s case (supra) as was directed by this Court and the object of the Page 35 36

Page 36 37 footing and to publish the Voters’ List as early as possible, so that the subsequent steps could be taken for conducting the elections of the Office Bearers of SCBA expeditiously. 32. Appearing on behalf of some of the members of the SCBA, Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Advocate, firstly submitted that Interlocutory Application No.1 filed in Civil Appeal No.3401 of 2003, was not maintainable, either under Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, or under Order 13 Rule 3 thereof. Furthermore, since the judgment th dated 26 September, 2011, was not under challenge, JUDGMENT even the provisions of Order 40 of the Supreme Court Rules were not applicable to the application. Mr. Dwivedi, however, accepted the fact that Resolution Nos.1 and 4, which, according to him, had been adopted at the Special General Body th Meeting of the SCBA held on 16 January, 2012, Page 37 38 could not be supported and he was not, therefore, pressing the same. 33. Mr. Dwivedi urged that once the judgment had been delivered, the Court became functus officio and any further proceeding in relation to the disposed of matter could be only by way of the provisions for review, both under the Code of Civil Procedure, as also under Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. Reiterating his earlier submissions, Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi submitted that the th judgment dated 26 September, 2011, had attained finality and could not be modified or altered in JUDGMENT any manner. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Dwivedi firstly referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in Durgesh Sharma Vs. Jayshree [(2008) 9 SCC 648], wherein, as a general principle, it was held that the inherent powers vested in a Court, could not be invoked when there were specific provisions in law in that Page 38 39

Page 39 40 34. Mr. Dwivedi submitted that in an application of this nature, the extraordinary powers vested in the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution could not be invoked to allow the prayers made and the same being entirely misconceived, were liable to be rejected. 35. Representing the Supreme Court Advocates Association (Non-AOR), Mr. S.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, firstly submitted that I.A. Nos.1 and 2 of 2012, filed on behalf of the SCAORA, were not maintainable, since they neither fell within the ambit of a Review Petition under Article 137 of JUDGMENT the Constitution of India or Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. It was also urged that SCAORA was not a necessary party and the application filed by it was in gross abuse of the process of the Court. Mr. Singh submitted that none of the rights of any of the members of SCAORA have been affected by the Resolutions adopted by Page 40 41 th the Governing Body of the SCBA on 16 January, 2012 and, if at all any clarification was required, the members of the Implementation Committee could have come and obtained directions from the Court. 36. Mr. Singh submitted that the main intention of the requisition meeting was to bring to the notice of the Executive Committee of the SCBA various irregularities committed by the Implementation Committee which needed to be rectified. It was submitted that what had transpired at the meeting th of the General Body of SCBA on 16 January, 2012, was a reflection of the mood of the members of the JUDGMENT SCBA, who were of the view that the Executive Committee of the SCBA was trying to stall the elections which were required to be conducted within the month of May, 2012. Mr. Singh reiterated the submissions made by Mr. Dwivedi and submitted that since the General Body of the SCBA had accepted the resignation of Mr. Parekh given Page 41 42 voluntarily, the subsequent meeting of the Executive Committee held in his absence could not be faulted, since even the Vice-President of the Association refused to preside over the meeting. 37. Mr. Singh also urged that the Implementation Committee had deviated from the directions given in th the judgment passed by this Court on 26 September, 2011, and the questionnaire issued by it contained various anomalies and excluded even Senior Advocates practising in this Court but living outside Delhi, such as in Noida and Gurgaon, from being eligible to vote. JUDGMENT 38. Apart from the above, the names of various Advocates and Advocates-on-Record had been wrongly shown in the list which was also bound to create confusion. For example, the name of Shri M.C. Bhandare, the present Governor of Orissa and the name of a sitting Judge of the Madras High Court, have been included in the list, which clearly went Page 42 43 to show that the Implementation Committee had not applied its mind to the preparation of the Voters’ List. Mr. Singh also urged that the consideration of valid members who were eligible to vote was to be considered by the SCBA which meant the General Body and not the Executive Committee alone. Accordingly, even the appointment of Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Mr. P.P. Rao and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocates, as members of the Implementation Committee, was irregular and unlawful and any decision taken by the Committee must be held to be void. JUDGMENT 39. Mr. Singh submitted that various mal-practices were resorted to by the persons who have been at the helm of affairs of SCBA, by throwing lavish parties and using other means to attract votes at the time of election to the Executive Committee of the Association. Mr. Singh submitted that far from protecting the interests of the members of the Bar, Page 43 44 some of the present members of the Executive Committee were more concerned about their own aggrandizement to the detriment of the interests of the members of the Bar. Mr. Singh submitted that the Resolutions adopted by the General Body Meeting th of the SCBA at the meeting held on 16 January, 2012 and the subsequent meeting of the Executive th Committee held on 18 January, 2012, had been legally adopted and could not be interfered with, especially in a Petition which was not maintainable. 40. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned Senior Advocate, JUDGMENT briefly appeared for some of the members and urged that having regard to the questionnaire published by the members of the Implementation Committee, some clarification was necessary as to the voting rights of the members of the Association. 41. Apart from Dr. Dhawan, among others who addressed the Court, were Mr. Ashok Arora, learned Page 44 45 Advocate and former Honorary Secretary of the SCBA, Mr. Pramod Swarup, Senior Executive Member of the SCBA, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, former President of SCAORA. Each of them spoke, either in support of the submissions made by Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi and Mr. S.P. Singh or in favour of those made by Mr. Harish Salve and Mr. Ashok Desai. 42. Since Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, besides being a member of the Implementation Committee, was also appointed as amicus curiae by this Court in the matter, we requested him to file written submissions in the JUDGMENT matter. In a brief submission, Mr. Ranjit Kumar submitted that despite all the apprehensions expressed by Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi and Mr. S.P. Singh, that the rights of the practising lawyers in the Supreme Court to form an Association had been curtailed or that the provisions of the Societies Registration Act were being violated by the Page 45 46

Page 46 47 Sunita B. Rao as Coordinator of the Implementation Committee. When the two appeals were taken up for hearing, one of the major issues which was canvassed was that in connection with the holding of elections to the Executive Committee of the SCBA, one of the methods resorted to for the purpose of ensuring a candidate’s success in the election was to enroll a large number of members to vote for a particular candidate. The same had given rise to a lot of discussion and deliberation which ultimately resulted in the amendment of Rule 18 regarding the eligibility of such members to contest and vote at any election. It was also JUDGMENT proposed that a member who exercised his right to vote in any High Court or District Court, Advocates’ Association or Bar Association, would not be eligible to contest for any post of the SCBA or to cast his vote at the elections. It was also proposed that every member before casting his vote would, in a prescribed form, give a declaration Page 47 48 that he had not voted in any other election of advocates in the High Court/District Court Bar Association. Any false declaration would invite automatic suspension of the member from the membership of the SCBA for a period of three years. th The requisition dated 10 January, 2003, was placed for consideration at a Special General Body meeting th of the SCBA on 18 February, 2003, and the amendment was adopted by a majority of 85% of the members present and voting. Thereafter, at a further meeting of the Executive Committee convened rd on 3 March, 2003, it was resolved to hold election of the Office Bearers/Executive Members for the JUDGMENT next session and for the constitution of the Election Committee. It was further resolved to th hold elections on 25 April, 2003. Despite an attempt by some of the members to stall the th proceedings, in the meeting of 10 March, 2003, it was resolved to constitute an Implementation Committee to implement the Resolution on “One Bar Page 48 49

Page 49 50 or a Small Committee, which may be appointed by the SCBA, consisting of three Senior Advocates, to collect information and to prepare a list of regular members practising in this Court and another separate list of members not regularly practising in this Court and a third list of temporary members of the SCBA. After placing the list on the SCBA website and inviting objections, the Committee could then take a final decision which would be final and binding on the members of the SCBA, and, thereafter the final list of regular practitioners of the Supreme Court would be displayed by the SCBA. JUDGMENT 46. Once such directions had been given in the judgment disposing of the two civil appeals filed by the SCBA through Mr. Ashok Arora, the members of the SCBA were bound by the directions contained therein and the said directions had to be obeyed, however aggrieved a member of the SCBA might be. Page 50 51 The agenda for the meeting of the General Body th which was convened on 16 January, 2012, to consider the implications of the judgment in B.D. Kaushik’s case, did not permit the members to consider any other agenda for which notice had not been given, whatever may have been the mood of the members present at the meeting. If any member felt th aggrieved by the judgment delivered on 26 September, 2011, he could have taken recourse to other lawful means available to him under the law. The Resolutions adopted at the General Body Meeting th th on 16 January, 2012, and, thereafter, on 18 January, 2012, were not only an affront to the JUDGMENT majesty and dignity of the Supreme Court, but were outright contumacious. It is highly regrettable that the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association. which is the leading Bar Association in the country and whose members are expected to provide leadership and example to other Bar Associations of the country and to act in aid of Page 51 52 the judgments of the Courts, should have resorted to a Resolution not to abide by the judgment and to even act in defiance thereof by resolving that all members of the Bar Association would be entitled to vote in the elections. Although, Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi did concede that the second and fourth th Resolutions adopted at the meeting of 16 January, 2012, should not be taken into consideration, the attempt to justify the conduct of the members of th the SCBA at its meeting held on 16 January, 2012, cannot be supported. Mr. Ram Jethmalani, learned Senior Advocate, who was present at the meeting submitted in no uncertain terms that he had not JUDGMENT th chaired the General Body Meeting convened on 16 January, 2012, and was not a party to the Resolutions which had been adopted at such meeting. On the other hand, Mr. Jethmalani submitted that he had cautioned the Members not to act in an unruly manner and to allow the proceedings to be conducted in a lawful and free manner and to allow each Page 52 53 member, who had a grievance, including Mr. Parekh, to express his views and then to adopt any Resolution that the members felt was needed to be adopted in the light of the agenda of the meeting. 47. We cannot help but notice that although the General Body Meeting had been convened to consider th the implications of the judgment dated 26 September, 2011, what transpired later is a complete departure therefrom. The members of the SCBA present at the meeting were bent upon their own agendas, which were directed against the three senior members of the Bar, who had been appointed JUDGMENT as members of the Implementation Committee, together with the President. In our view, this was not a method which should have been resorted to for the said purpose. The meeting degenerated into a chaotic situation in which various things were done, which were not in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and Regulations of the Page 53 54 SCBA, and were against the normal rules of decorum and cannot be supported, despite attempts made to do so by Mr. Dwivedi and Mr. Singh. The manner in which the three members of the Implementation Committee whose names had been referred to by the th Hon’ble Judges in the judgment dated 26 September, 2011, were treated, speaks volumes of the manner in which the Hon’ble Members of the SCBA conducted themselves. If any member is aggrieved by the actions of any other member and seeks his removal from the membership of the SCBA, the rules provide the manner in which the same is to be done and certainly not arbitrarily. It is no doubt true, JUDGMENT that some of the members were aggrieved by the methodology adopted by the Implementation Committee for preparing the list of eligible voters for the election, but the same was done pursuant to the directions given by this Court in its judgment th dated 26 September, 2011. If the members were aggrieved by the questionnaire which was Page 54 55

Page 55 56 49. We are unable to accept the said submission made by Mr. Dwivedi and Mr. Singh, since the need

delivered. In order to enforce its orders and directions, the Supreme Court can take recourse to the powers vested in it under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice to the parties. In such cases, the lis does not cease and the expression “matter pending before it” mentioned in Article 142 of the Constitution, would include matters in which orders of the Supreme Court were yet to be implemented, when particularly such JUDGMENT orders were necessary for doing complete justice to the parties to the proceedings. To take any other view would result in rendering the orders of the Supreme Court meaningless. In this regard, reference may be made to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. Union of India & Anr. [(1998) 4 SCC Page 56 57 409], referred to hereinbefore, wherein the question before the Bench was the power of the

Constitution. While considering the same and holding that the power vested in the Supreme Court under Article 142 should not be used to supplant substantive law applicable to a case, being curative in nature, their Lordships also observed that the plenary powers of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution are inherent in the Court and are complementary to those powers which are specifically conferred on the Court by various JUDGMENT statutes, though are not limited by those statutes. This Court held that these powers also exist independent of the statutes with a view to doing complete justice between the parties. This power exists as a separate and independent basis of jurisdiction, apart from the statutes, and stands upon the foundation for preventing injustice in the Page 57 58 process of litigation and to do complete justice between the parties. This Court further observed

necessary, whenever it is just and equitable to do so and, in particular, to ensure the observance of the due process of law, to do complete justice between the parties, while administering justice according to law. In the event the parties do not or refuse to abide by its decision, the Supreme Court would have no option, but to take recourse to the provisions of Article 129 of the Constitution or under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts JUDGMENT Act, 1971. 50. When a judgment has been delivered by this Court, it is the obligation of all citizens to act in aid thereof and to obey the decision and the directions contained therein, in view of the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution, Page 58 59 until and unless the same are modified or recalled. In the said background, each of the Resolutions said to have been adopted at the purported meeting th of the General Body of the SCBA on 16 January, 2012, do not muster scrutiny and must be held to be in violation of Article 141 of the Constitution and cannot, therefore, be countenanced. Apart from the fact that the agenda for the meeting did not include the matters in respect whereof the resolutions have been adopted, the resolutions themselves, being in flagrant violation of the th judgment delivered by this Court on 26 September, 2011, have to be set aside. It is the duty of all JUDGMENT the members of the SCBA to abide by and to give effect to the judgments of this Court and not to act in derogation thereof. The purported resolution expelling the three senior members of the Implementation Committee, appointed under the directions of this Court, from the primary membership of the Association, speaks volumes as to Page 59 60

Page 60 61 th General Body Meeting of the SCBA held on 16 January, 2012, and the meeting of the Executive Committee are held to be invalid and are set aside. Consequently, the composition of the Office Bearers of the SCBA prior to the adoption of the alleged th resolutions of 16 January, 2012, stand restored. The alleged resolution expelling the three senior members of the SCBA constituting the Implementation Committee appointed under the directions of this Court, is set aside. The Implementation Committee shall, therefore, continue with the work assigned to it for identification of the members of the SCBA eligible to vote in the elections in terms of the JUDGMENT th directions given in the judgment dated 26 September, 2011. However, if any member of the SCBA is aggrieved by the methodology adopted by the Implementation Committee for identification of such eligible members, he/she may make a representation to the Executive Committee of the SCBA within a fortnight from date and if such a representation or Page 61 62 representations is or are received within the specified period, the Executive Committee of the SCBA will look into such objections and take a decision thereupon and, if necessary, to apply to the Court, before further steps are taken by the Implementation Committee in regard to identification of members eligible to vote at the elections. For a period of two weeks, the Implementation Committee shall not take any further steps in the matter, and shall, thereafter, resume the work of identification of members of the SCBA eligible to vote on the instructions that may be given by the Executive Committee of the SCBA in JUDGMENT this regard. The process of identifying the members of the SCBA eligible to vote in the elections for selection of the members of the Executive Committee must be completed within four weeks from the date of individual objections received, if any, are decided finally. Thereafter, the SCBA shall set the dates for the election Page 62 63 schedule, including publication of the list of members of the SCBA eligible to vote in the elections, so that the elections can be held once the final list is approved and published. 53. We expect all the members of the SCBA to cooperate with the Implementation Committee and the Executive Committee of the SCBA to complete the publication of the list of members of the SCBA eligible to vote in the elections within the time specified, and, thereafter, to cooperate in the conducting of the elections for the election of the Office Bearers of the SCBA. JUDGMENT 54. I.A. No.1 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003 is thus disposed of. Let copies of this order be made available to the President of the SCBA and the members of the Implementation Committee for immediate compliance. A copy of the operative portion of this judgment may also be put up on the web-site and Notice Board of the SCBA for Page 63 64 general information of all of its members. All connected IAs are also disposed of by this order. 55. Having regard to the observations made hereinabove, the Contempt Petition No.45 of 2012, filed in the civil appeals by Dr. Parvin Kumar Mutreja, Advocate, and two others, is also disposed of by virtue of this order. ……………………………………………………… J. (ALTAMAS KABIR) ………………………………………………………J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR) New Delhi Date: 07.05.2012 JUDGMENT Page 64