Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors vs B.D. Kaushik

4. The persons whose names figure in this list need not reply to the questionnaire issued earlier.

14. While the aforesaid exercise was being undertaken by the Implementation Committee, on 12th January, 2012, about 240 Members of the SCBA requested the convening of a General Body Meeting of the SCBA. As the Executive Committee of the SCBA had at its meeting held on 6th January, 2012, already decided to call such Meeting on 16th January, 2012, a Circular in this regard was issued informing the Members that the Meeting would be held on 16th January, 2012. It is alleged that on 16th 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.

2) The Implementation Committee proposed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 26th September, 2011 passed in the case of SCBA Vs. B.D. Kaushik has itself ignored the judgment and is left with no authority to issue any list of the regular practicing Members of SCBA as it has acted in a manner which is detrimental to the interest of Members of SCBA and, therefore, the Implementation Committee stands dissolved.

48. At this stage, it will also be necessary for us to deal with the question of maintainability of I.A. Nos.1 and 2 raised both by Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi and by Mr. S.P. Singh. Their main contention is that once the judgment has been delivered by the Court, the Court becomes functus officio and in the absence of any pending lis, this Court could not have entertained the said two applications.

52. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos.3401 and 3402 of 2003 is allowed. All the Resolutions purported to have been adopted in the General Body Meeting of the SCBA held on 16th 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 resolutions of 16th 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 directions given in the judgment dated 26th 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 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 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 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.

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 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.