Supreme Court Seeks Suggestions On Electoral Reforms In Supreme Court Bar Association

The Supreme Court on Monday (August 14) directed the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), including its president and senior counsel Adhish C Aggarwala, to submit their suggestions with respect to further reforms in the election process of the lawyers’ body. The order reads: “We have impressed upon Dr. Adish Aggarwala and the other members of the Supreme Court Bar Association to submit their respective suggestions and/or the modalities to be followed for further reforms in the election process of the bar association. The suggestions may be submitted within eight weeks.” A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Dutta was hearing an application filed by a member of the bar association through Advocate-on-Record Pravir Choudhary seeking a relaxation of the norms for determining voter eligibility. Taking on record the suggestions offered by former SCBA president Vikas Singh, the bench also pronounced: “In deference to the previous orders, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh has given certain suggestions. Copy of the same be given to Dr. Adish Aggarwala, Senior Advocate and President of the Supreme Court Bar Association.” Courtroom Exchange Right at the outset, SCBA president Adhish C Aggarwala resisted the application by saying that the executive committee of the association was active and would consider any amendments that were submitted in the form of a requisition endorsed by at least 150 members. Saying that the court no longer had any role to play, the senior counsel said – “The court’s role starts when the executive committee of the bar association is not referring any requisition to the general body. Earlier, in 2011, when this committee was unable to do anything, the court appointed an implementation committee of three members…That issue is over.” “You are right,” Justice Kant conceded, “The only larger issue is relating to some reforms – good reforms – members were suggesting.” Any member with suggestions should come to the Supreme Court Bar Association and submit their suggestions in the form of a requisition, the bar association president insisted. He added, “SCBA is alive. But the problem is, we have to face these people who do not know the bye-laws of the association. They do not know that they should submit requisitions.” “We are confident that members of the Bar are well-conversant with law,” Justice Kant intervened, before saying, in jest, “They know law better than us, and better than you, Dr Aggarwala.” “The present application has become infructuous,” Aggarwala argued, pointing to the fact that the application seeking electoral reforms had been filed before the 2023 elections that took place in May. Justice Kant explained, “After that application was filed, on the last occasion, we had taken up some issues for consideration…All of you give suggestions, we will consider them.” Aggarwala protested. “If someone wants an amendment now, they will have to give us a requisition supported by at least 150 members, which will then be voted on by the general body. If they give a requisition and we fail to act upon the requisition; that is when the role of the court begins.” “Alright, but file something before us outlining the relevant rules and procedure at least. We are granting you time. You give us that note,” Justice Kant said. A counsel interjected, saying that she wished to place on record the suggestions given by former SCBA president Vikas Singh. His suggestions, as well as the suggestions of other members of the Bar had been solicited by the bench on an earlier occasion, for the purpose of “laying down explicit guidelines for elections in the future”. “Give a copy to Dr Aggarwala and others,” Justice Kant instructed the counsel. To the SCBA president, the judge said, “You please submit that note making reference to the entire procedure.” Aggarwala pointed out that his predecessor had been appointed amicus curiae, when he was the president of the bar association. He added, “If Vikas Singh wants to remain amicus curiae as per the last order, then he should make a statement that he is not going to contest any election.” Justice Kant declined before clarifying, “We have not appointed anyone amicus curiae. All members of the Bar are amicus curiae as far as this case is concerned. Everyone.” Ultimately, the SCBA president agreed, on behalf of the bar association, to file an affidavit, but added a caveat. “We do not want to waste Your Lordship’s time. We will file the affidavit, but not on the basis of this.” The senior counsel held up the papers handed to him, containing the suggestions. He further said: “We can look into a requisition. But, the executive committee has decided that the status quo will remain. There is no point in submitting suggestions at this stage because we have already decided. If anyone wants any change in the present system, they are free to submit a...

Supreme Court Seeks Suggestions On Electoral Reforms In Supreme Court Bar Association

Awstika Das

'This is not adversarial litigation and we are all here for the betterment of the institution,' SC bench says.

Tags