2012 (9) TMI 560 - SC - Indian Laws

Suggestions made by the Implementation Committee for elections of SCBA - Held that - Considering the principle of ONE BAR ONE VOTE that persons who had 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 or to attend the General Body meetings of the SCBA. It was 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. Through inadvertence, the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association(SCAORA) had not been excluded, although, it formed an integral part of the SCBA. Thus judgment is need to be modified including the words AND THE SCAORA after the words OTHER THAN THE SCBA .

Summary

Issues:
Clarification and modification of judgment regarding the principle of ONE BAR ONE VOTE and exclusion of Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association from voting eligibility.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court received an application for clarification and modification of a previous judgment related to the principle of ONE BAR ONE VOTE. The application highlighted an omission in the judgment concerning the exclusion of persons who had contested elections in other Bar Associations from voting in the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections. The applicants pointed out that the Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Association (SCAORA) had not been explicitly excluded, despite being an integral part of the SCBA. All interested parties, including the Implementation Committee, supported the suggestion for modification. Consequently, the Court accepted the modification by including the words "AND THE SCAORA" after the phrase "OTHER THAN THE SCBA" in the relevant paragraph of the judgment.

Regarding the second prayer for modification concerning the number of filings in a year, the Court found no need for any changes at that stage. It was decided that since all advocates and SCBA members would be covered by the number of entries into the Supreme Court High Security Zone through the Proximity Card system, no further modifications were necessary. The Court allowed the application for clarification and modification to the extent of including the SCAORA in the exclusion provision, while maintaining the status quo on the number of filings in a year as per the previous judgment.