Full Text
JUDGMENT
J.C MADAN & ANR ..... Plaintiffs
Through Mr. Puneet Aggrawal, Advocate
Through Mr.Anoop G. Chaudhari and Ms.June Chaudhari, Senior Advocates with
Ms.Sumeeta Chaudhari and Mr.Ashish Mohan, Advocate
IA No. 19385/2013(u/O 39 R 1 & 2 CPC)
1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking ex parte ad interim injunction to restrain the conduct of the Supreme Court Bar Association Elections on 13.12.2013 or any other date without obtaining proper declaration from its members and preparing proper voter list in strict compliance of the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
2. The plaintiff has filed the accompanying plaint seeking a decree of declaration that action of the defendant Bar Association in holding next elections without ensuring compliance of the directions/guidelines of the 2013:DHC:6430 Hon’ble Supreme Court is null and void and for permanent injunction against the defendant Bar Association from directing them to withhold elections till the proper voter list is prepared in compliance with the directions/guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Other reliefs are also sought.
3. It is averred in the accompanying plaint that plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association and hence, are interested in the smooth functioning and fair and just elections. Reference is made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association vs. BD Kaushik, CA 3401/2003 and subsequent orders passed on 20.07.2012 which laid down guidelines for identifying a member eligible to contest and vote in the Supreme Court Bar Association Executive Elections.
4. It is further averred that the directions were issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the members of the Implementation Committee to take expeditious steps in finalizing the voter list of the members who are entitled to cast their votes in the election and to set the programme for the election of the Officer Bearers. It is further stated that the defendant has no reverence for the direction/judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as they have no on 11.11.2013 called for a meeting of the emergent Executive Committee on 12.11.2013 where it is pleaded that the following agenda was discussed:a. “Whether the voter list shall be prepared in complete and in total compliance of the judgment dated 20.7.2012. b. Whether the voter list shall be prepared partially and on pick & choose basis on the extracts and criteria of the Judgment of SCBA vs. B.D. Kaushik. c. Whether to disregard the judgment in totality and hold the elections on the scheduled date and time on the list finalized in the year 2011 as on 28.02.2011. d. To hold the elections by sideling the judgment completely on the entire list of members of SCBA. e. To discuss holding of SCBA Elections on 13th December, 2013.”
5. On the basis of the above, it is submitted that the agenda itself speaks volumes of the conduct of the defendant.
6. Reliance is also placed on a notice circulated on 11.11.2013 by the defendant which points out that only the High Court Bar Association of Calcutta has sent their voter list for comparison with the defendant Bar Association’s voter list. Hence, it is stated that the defendant has received response from only one bar association and on the other hand, they are planning to conduct elections on 13.12.2013 which is contrary to the directions/guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
7. The above matter was listed on 05.12.2013 when summons and notices were issued to the defendant for 11.12.2013.
8. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has strenuously urged that the elections are being held on 13.12.2013 and should be stayed. He submits that there is complete non-compliance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Reliance is placed on the directions/issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IA No. 5 of 2012 on 20.07.2012, especially paras 14 and 15 of the said directions. It is strenuously urged that as per the said directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 20.07.2012, those persons would not be allowed to vote who had contested the elections of the Executive Committee of any other court annexed Bar Association other than the defendant during the years 2007 to 2012. Further, those persons who had cast their votes in any election to the Executive Committee of any court annexed Bar Association other than the defendant Bar Association would also not be allowed to vote. Directions to the Implementation Committee were issued to modify the criteria as suggested above for the purpose of identifying members of the Executive Committee for the above purposes. It is further stated that except for the Calcutta Bar Association, no other bar association has forwarded the list of voters. Hence, it is stated that it is not possible for the defendant Bar Association to prepare a list of those who have contested/voted for bar associations other than the Supreme Court Bar Association. Hence, it is stated that the election is proposed to take place on an incomplete list of voters. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that this is the first election after the directions passed by the Supreme Court on 20.07.2012 and an incomplete list is the basis for the elections. Later on, on being informed that elections did take place in December, 2012, the submission was modified to claim that even for the last election no such list was prepared.
9. Learned senior counsel for the defendant submits that in effect the plaintiffs seek to add words to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its direction dated 20.07.2012 has specified that those who have contested the elections of any bar association or voted in such elections attached to any other court cannot be voters in the Supreme Court Bar Association. The mechanism to identify such voters has not been spelt out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that Implementation Committee as appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court had carried out a detailed exercise last year and based on the declaration forms filed by the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association, a consolidated list of voters was prepared and elections were held on 13.12.2012 based on the said list. It is submitted that as far as this year is concerned, a Four-Member Election Committee is to prepare the electoral rolls in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court and to prepare the Schedule of the elections in accordance with the past practice.
10. It is further submitted that in the meeting of the Executive Committee that took place on 12.11.2013, the agenda was as follows: “1. To meet out the SCBA elections on 13th December, 2013. (a) To prepare voters list according to the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court dated 20.07.2012. (b)To prepare audit report for the period commencing from December, 2012 to December, 2013 as the Executive Committee took charge on 13.12.2012, so audit report may be prepared for that period only.
2. To discuss about the preparation of Blood Donation Camp in association of Rotary Club of Delhi as communicated by the President, SCBA to be held on 15.11.2013 at Supreme Court Lawn.”
11. It is vehemently urged that the unsigned document relied upon by the plaintiff as spelt out above being the Agenda for the Executive Committee for the meeting on 12.11.2013 is absolutely false.
12. Further, it is pointed out that the Election Committee on 26.11.2013 issued a notice brining out the Schedule for the elections. As per the said notice a provisional list of voters was to be displayed on a Notice Board on 27.11.2013. Objections/suggestions were to be filed before 04.12.2013. Members of the Bar Associations who were desirous to vote in the ensuing elections were to file declaration form by 02.12.2013. The final voters’ list was to be prepared by 05.12.2013. The final voters’ list as prepared pursuant to this exercise has been filed in Court today. It is urged that this voter list comprises of list as prepared for the elections held in December 2012 with addition based on the objections that were filed and accepted by the members of the Election Committee.
13. It is strenuously urged that the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are not voters as elaborated in the said list. In fact, plaintiff No. 1 has not filed his declaration last year and was not on the voter list last year also. Plaintiff No. 2 had 58 swipes in his proximity card. Further his cheque for dues paid was returned unpaid as it was not signed. Dues have been paid after the last date of payment. Hence, plaintiff No. 2 is not on the electoral list. It is further stated that the suit as framed is not maintainable as the plaintiffs have not challenged their non-inclusion in the voters’ list but are merely on a general basis seeking to challenge the conduct of the elections. It is stated that the plaintiffs are neither on the voters’ list nor are candidates for the elections. They have also not challenged their non-inclusion in the voters’ list. Hence, the present suit as framed does not lie.
14. It is submitted that the present suit appears to be a sponsored suit on behalf of some mischievous elements. Further, it is stated that no objections were filed by the plaintiff to the voters’ list which were displayed by the defendant. Hence, the plaintiffs have no locus to file the present suit.
15. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has, in rejoinder, submitted that the time table for elections was set out on 06.12.2013 and he has filed the present suit on 05.12.2013. Hence, the final voters’ list could not be challenged by the plaintiffs in the present suit. It is further urged that the present declaration form also makes arbitrary changes inasmuch as it seeks a declaration from advocates stating as to whether they were nominated to contest elections to the Executive Committee of any Court’s Bar Association other than the defendant Bar Association for the year 2008-2013. A similar question is posed pertaining to the vote in such elections of the Executive Committee of any Court annexed Bar Association or Tribunal annexed Bar Association other than the defendant. It is stated that in the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20.07.2012, the criteria fixed was for the period 2007-2012 and this has been arbitrarily changed to 2008-2013. Hence, it is strenuously urged that the present voters’ list prepared is illegal and contrary to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
17. There is no merit in the contention of the plaintiff that a notice was issued for an emergent Meeting to be held on 12.11.2013 by the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association, whose Agenda is reproduced in paragraph 5 of the Plaint. The alleged agenda seeks to deviate from the directions of the Supreme Court and is one of the main grounds to challenge the elections as stated in the plaint. The defendants have placed on record the Agenda which is duly signed by the Secretary of the defendant association and is completely different from what is pleaded by the plaintiffs in the Plaint. The unsigned agenda relied upon by the plaintiff cannot be a basis to challenge the present election process which has been set into motion. This contention of the plaintiff cannot be accepted.
18. The next submission of the plaintiff that the defendant association should gather a list of voters of all the Bar Associations in India before proceeding to hold elections to the defendant Association is an argument to be rejected outright. Reference may be had to the directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 20.07.2012 in I.A. No.5 of 2012 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3401 & 3402 of 2003 titled Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik, which reads as follows:- “14. It was lastly indicated 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 on the “One Bar One Vote” principle, or to attend the General Body meetings of the SCBA. 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 abovementioned years. The said suggestion is also accepted and approved.
15. IA No.5 filed in the disposed of Appeals is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the Members of the Implementation Committee to modify the criteria suggested by it in the light of the above suggestions, which have been accepted in this order, for the purpose of identifying members of the SCBA, who are regular practitioners in the Supreme Court, for the purposes indicated in the judgment dated 26th September, 2011.”
19. A perusal of the directions make it quite clear as submitted by learned senior counsel for the defendant that what the plaintiff is seeking is to add words and phrases to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. There is no direction that list of members who have voted or contested has to be first obtained from all the Bar Associations of India before compiling list of voters of the defendant Bar Association. On this count itself, the contention of the plaintiff has to be rejected. Even otherwise, the said exercise would be a herculean task and on a prima facie consideration appears to be impossible to comply with. There is no reason why the Bar Association would respond to any such request if sent out by the defendant Association. The said argument of the plaintiff prima facie is completely without merits.
20. The next argument of learned counsel for plaintiffs, namely, that the criteria for being a voter is sought to be changed i.e. the period of consideration being changed from 2007-2012 to 2008-2013 is also an argument without merit. Firstly, there is no such plea raised by the plaintiffs in the plaint. It is settled law that a party cannot argue beyond his pleadings. (Reference may be had to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Trojan & Co. Ltd v. Rm. N. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235 and A.V.G.P. Chettiar & Sons v. T. Palanisamy Gounder (2002) 5 SCC 337). As the present contention is not raised in the plaint, it cannot be gone into.
21. Even otherwise, prima facie there is no merit in the said contention. It cannot be accepted that as was directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 20.7.2012 that the criteria for making a Voters’ list was to remain frozen in the time frame of 2007-12 irrespective of when the elections are held. It was posed to learned counsel for the plaintiff as to whether if the elections were to be held say in the year 2017-18 would the defendant still be obliged to have a Voters’ list based on declarations pertaining to the period 2007-12. There was no answer to the said question. Clearly the submission is prima facie without merit.
22. The defendants have clearly brought out that the procedure being followed for the present election prima facie appear to be fair. The Executive Committee meeting on 12.11.2013 appointed the Election Committee. The Election Committee has on 26.11.2013 framed a schedule for the elections. The provisional Voters list was displayed on 27.11.2013 and objections to the same were acceptable till 4.12.2013. The members who were desirous of voting in the ensuing elections were to file declaration forms by 2.12.2013. The final voters list was to be prepared by 5.12.2013. The final voters list has been filed in Court. The elections are now to be held on 16.12.2013.
23. There is also merit in the submission of learned senior counsel for the defendant that the plaintiffs appear to be busy bodies having no personal stake in the present Suit. Both of them are not voters for the coming elections. They have also not challenged their exclusion from the voters’ list.
24. Reference may be had to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association and Others versus B.D.Kaushik, (2011) 13 SCC 774 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paragraphs 43 and 52 as under:-
25. One also cannot help noticing that the list for conduct of elections in compliance of order and directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court was prepared in 2012 and elections were held in December, 2012. The plaintiff earlier never challenged the said list that was prepared for elections of 2012. The same procedure has been adopted for the present elections. The plaintiffs at this belated stage cannot be permitted to stall the election process.
26. In my view plaintiffs have failed to make out any prima facie case. The submissions raised are prima facie completely without merits. The plaintiffs have also not shown as to how irreparable injury is likely to be caused to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are not contesting the election and have neither argued nor shown any irreparable injury.
27. Balance of convenience is also in favour of holding the elections and not stalling the process of elections which has already commenced where a large number of voters are expected to exercise their right.
28. In view of the above, present application is dismissed. CS(OS) 2371/2013 List before Joint Registrar on 16.01.2014 for completion of pleadings.
JAYANT NATH, J. DECEMBER 13, 2013 rb/n/‘raj’