Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRA ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.15349-15350 OF 2021
Amit Sachan & Anr. …Petitioners
Versus
Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow & Ors. …Respondents
O R D E R
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders dated
24.08.2021 and 27.08.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the Lucknow
Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed in P.I.L. Civil
No.18055 of 2021 by which the High Court has directed in paragraph 24 as
under:-
“(I) The U.P. Bar Council shall issue necessary circular or
order implementing the principle of ‘one Bar one Vote’.
(II) The U.P. Bar Council shall direct all the registered Bar
Associations to put on their website/notice board the
names of members who have casted their vote in last
three years i.e., 2018, 2019 and 2020.
(III) The Central Bar Association, Lucknow Bar Association,
State Public Services Tribunal Bar Association, Central
Administrative Tribunal Bar Association and Armed
Forces Tribunal Bar Association are directed to put on
their website/ notice board the list of members who
have casted their vote in last three elections i.e., 2018,
2019 and 2020.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by R
Natarajan
Date: 2021.09.27
12:10:17 IST
Reason:
(IV) The Elders' Committee, Awadh Bar Association shall
formulate 'code of conduct' for elections keeping in view
the recommendations and directions issued today.
(V) Canvassing by distribution of visiting cards/cards,
pamphlets or poster should be prohibited in the
elections of the Awadh Bar Association. Distribution of
lunch packets, refreshment, etc. should not be allowed
either before or during the election and all those who
are found distributing such things should be debarred
from contesting elections. Hosting or arranging dinner
parties for canvassing for elections should be
prohibited.
(VI) Senior Registrar or any other Officer deputed by him in
consultation with the Elders' Committee shall debar
such Members of Awadh Bar Association from
participating the ensuing election who may be found
having indulged in misbehaviour and disrupting the
process of election on 14.8.2021 while the polling was
in process, after due verification of the complaints
received and perusal of video clipping and such other
evidence as may be available.”
The petitioners – advocates reported to be practicing lawyers and
contesting the election of the Awadh Bar Association, 2021 have preferred
the present special leave petitions.
2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that by the impugned order, the
High Court has declared the election of the Awadh Bar Association scheduled
to be held on 14.08.2021, however, without appreciating the difficulties that it
will be very difficult to bring back the nearly 4,500 members again for voting in
this pandemic situation. It is submitted that as far as the earlier election is
concerned, only the polling was got cancelled by the Returning Officer.
2.1 It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that in the election, which was
held on 14.08.2021 out of 4,500 members, 3,614 members directly cast their
votes and the remaining members, who were to cast their votes were only
1,219 members. It is submitted therefore that the High Court is not at all
justified in declaring fresh elections.
3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
and the impugned orders passed by the High Court, it appears that in the
election of Awadh Bar Association held on 14.08.2021 held in the premises of
the High Court of Lucknow, unruly, indecent and rustic behavior and breach
of protocol by some of the lawyers lead to ultimately cancellation of the
election which had caused the security issues in the premises of the High
Court and the Officers and Police were compelled to intervene to maintain the
decorum. Therefore, the High Court rightly took the suo moto cognizance of
the incident occurred on 14.08.2021 in the premises of the High Court.
3.1 As can be seen from the impugned orders that in the election of Awadh
Bar Association scheduled to be held on 14.08.2021, the
candidates/advocates alongwith their supporters entered into the voting
arena and indulged in tearing ballot papers and in pushing female lawyers
and misbehaving with them. Even one lawyer was seriously injured and his
hand got fractured in the incident. One lawyer suffered heart attack,
therefore, the High Court rightly took suo moto cognizance and issued
various directions including to hold fresh elections on 25.09.2021. The
directions as issued by the High Court in paragraph 24 cannot be faulted in
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which seems to be issued
to maintain the purity of the election of the Bar Association.
3.2 Having noted the importance of the Bar and the role to be played by the
members of the Bar in the administration of justice delivery system, this Court
in the case of R. Muthukrishnan Vs. Registrar General, High Court of
Judicature at Madras, (2019) 16 SCC 407 has observed in paragraphs 16 to
19 as under:-
“16. The legal profession cannot be equated with any other
traditional professions. It is not commercial in nature and is a
noble one considering the nature of duties to be performed
and its impact on the society. The independence of the Bar
and autonomy of the Bar Council has been ensured statutorily
in order to preserve the very democracy itself and to ensure
that judiciary remains strong. Where the Bar has not
performed the duty independently and has become a
sycophant that ultimately results in the denigrating of the
judicial system and judiciary itself. There cannot be existence
of a strong judicial system without an independent Bar.
17. It cannot be gainsaid that lawyers have contributed in the
struggle for independence of the nation. They have helped in
the framing of the Constitution of India and have helped the
courts in evolving jurisprudence by doing hard labour and
research work. The nobility of the legal system is to be
ensured at all costs so that the Constitution remains vibrant
and to expand its interpretation so as to meet new challenges.
18. It is basically the lawyers who bring the cause to the Court
are supposed to protect the rights of individuals of equality and
freedom as constitutionally envisaged and to ensure the
country is governed by the rule of law. Considering the
significance of the Bar in maintaining the rule of law, right to be
treated equally and enforcement of various other fundamental
rights, and to ensure that various institutions work within their
parameters, its independence becomes imperative and cannot
be compromised. The lawyers are supposed to be fearless
and independent in the protection of rights of litigants. What
lawyers are supposed to protect, is the legal system and
procedure of law of deciding the cases.
19. Role of the Bar in the legal system is significant. The Bar is
supposed to be the spokesperson for the judiciary as Judges
do not speak. People listen to the great lawyers and people
are inspired by their thoughts. They are remembered and
quoted with reverence. It is the duty of the Bar to protect
honest Judges and not to ruin their reputation and at the same
time to ensure that corrupt Judges are not spared. However,
lawyers cannot go to the streets or go on strike except when
democracy itself is in danger and the entire judicial system is
at stake. In order to improve the system, they have to take
recourse to the legally available methods by lodging complaint
against corrupt Judges to the appropriate administrative
authorities and not to level such allegation in the public.
Corruption is intolerable in the judiciary.”
3.3 It is further observed in paragraph 31 that there is no room for taking
out the procession in the court premises or slogan raising in the courts. This
Court has very heavily criticized the misbehave of the advocates in the
premises of the High Court of Madras resulting into requisitioning of CISF to
maintain safety and majesty of the Court and rule of law. In paragraph 31, it
is observed as under:-
“31. There is no room for taking out the procession in the court
premises, slogan raising in the courts, use of loudspeakers,
use of intemperate language with the Judges or to create any
kind of disturbance in the peaceful, respectful and dignified
functioning of the court. Its sanctity is not less than that of a
holy place reserved for noble souls. We are shocked to note
that the instances of abject misbehaviour of the advocates in
the premises of the High Court of Madras resulting into
requisitioning of CISF to maintain safety and majesty of the
Court and rule of law. It has been observed by this Court
in Mahipal Singh Rana [ Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of U.P. ,
(2016) 8 SCC 335 : (2016) 4 SCC (Civ) 1 : (2016) 3 SCC (Cri)
476 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 390] that the Bar Council has failed
to discharge its duties on the disciplinary side. In our opinion,
in case such state of affairs continues and the Bar Council fails
to discharge duties the Court shall have to supervise its
functioning and to pass appropriate permissible orders.
Independence of the Bar and the Bench both are supreme,
there has to be balance inter se.”
4.
Any member of the Bar cannot be permitted to misbehave in the
premises of the High Court. The manner in which the lawyers acted and
misbehaved on 14.08.2021 in the premises of the High Court, where the
election of the Awadh Bar Association was going on, cannot be tolerated and
accepted and has to be deprecated.
4.1 Being a member of the legal profession, which always is being
considered as a noble profession, what message the lawyers, who
misbehaved will give to the public at large. Office bearers of the Bar
Association are to be elected by the genuine voters and the advocates
genuinely/regularly practicing in the High Court and/or the Court concerned,
and outsiders not regularly practicing in that court cannot be permitted to
hijack the system by permitting them to take part in the election process of
electing members of the Bar Association. As the matter is subjudice before
the High Court, we refrain from making further observations on the conduct of
the advocates, who misbehaved and that too as stated in the impugned order
that even the female lawyers were pushed and some of the candidates
alongwith their supporters even misbehaved with them.
5. We see no reason at all to interfere with the impugned orders, which as
such is in furtherance of maintaining the purity of the election of the members
of the Bar Association. The special leave petitions are accordingly stand
dismissed.
………………………………J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ……………………………….J.
SEPTEMBER 24, 2021. [A.S. BOPANNA]
ITEM NO.14 Court 13 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 21103/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-08-2021
in PIL(C) No. 18055/2021 27-08-2021 in PIL(C) No. 18055/2021 passed
by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
AMIT SACHAN & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BAR COUNCIL OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.117757/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C
OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.117755/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE
PETITION (SLP/)
Date : 24-09-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv.
Mr. V.N. Subramaniam, Adv.
Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR
Mr. Jyotiresh Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Girish Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Sarvesh Kr. Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Satish Solanki, Adv.
Ms. Jaswanthi A., Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Asim Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Surya Mani Singh Royekwar, Adv.
Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed in terms of the
signed Order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
ITEM NO.14 Court 13 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 21103/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-08-2021
in PIL(C) No. 18055/2021 27-08-2021 in PIL(C) No. 18055/2021 passed
by the High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad, Lucknow Bench)
AMIT SACHAN & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BAR COUNCIL OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.117757/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C
OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.117755/2021-PERMISSION TO FILE
PETITION (SLP/)
Date : 24-09-2021 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv.
Mr. V.N. Subramaniam, Adv.
Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR
Mr. Jyotiresh Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Girish Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Sarvesh Kr. Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Pankaj Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Satish Solanki, Adv.
Ms. Jaswanthi A., Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Asim Chandra, Adv.
Mr. Surya Mani Singh Royekwar, Adv.
Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions is granted.
Heard Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners.
The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.
Reasoned Order to follow.
(R. NATARAJAN) (NISHA TRIPATHI)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER