Delhi High Court: The issues that arose for consideration in the present case were (a) whether elections to the Executive Committees of different Bar Associations in Delhi should be held simultaneously; (b) whether the terms/tenures of such Executive Committees should be for a uniform period; (c) whether Identity/Proximity Cards and Radio Frequency Identification Tag/Stickers (‘RFID’) should be mandatorily issued to all lawyers and if so by whom; and (d) to ensure purity in elections, should this Court prohibit hosting of election parties, printing of posters and erection of hoardings.
The 3-Judges Bench of Manmohan, ACJ.*, and Rajiv Shakdher and Suresh Kumar Kait, JJ., directed that elections to the Executive Committees of different Bar Associations in Delhi should be held on the same day and the term/tenure of all such Executive Committees should be for a uniform period of two years. Further, the Court prohibited hosting of election parties, printing of posters and erection of hoardings.
Background
The Predecessor Division Bench vide order dated 24-8-2023 in the present matter had constituted a Committee comprising three sitting Judges of this Court and the Chairman, Bar Council of Delhi, President of Delhi High Court Bar Association and the then Chairman, Coordination Committee of all District Courts Bar Associations of Delhi to explore the possibility of holding uniform elections in respect of all Bar Associations on one day and of preparation of ID/Proximity Cards for lawyers, RFID in respect of vehicles of lawyers.
During the meeting, it was submitted that rule of ‘One Bar One Vote’ laid down in P.K. Dash Advocate v. Bar Council of Delhi, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3493, was not being scrupulously implemented. The Committee by majority concluded that one of the major factors for the rule of ‘One Bar One Vote’ not being scrupulously implemented was the disparity in the length of the term of the Executive Committee and the elections being held on different dates by different Bar Associations. However, the majority of the Committee Members after deliberations gave suggestions for issuance of ID/Proximity Cards for lawyers, RFID in respect of vehicles of lawyers. Thereafter, the matter was referred to this Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that all the District Court Bar Associations, Delhi High Court Bar Association and all Bar Associations annexed with the Tribunals in Delhi, agreed that elections to their Executive Committees should henceforth be held simultaneously i.e., on the same day. Further, to ensure that in future also, all the Bar elections were to held on the same day, there was further consensus that the term/tenure of all the Executive Committees of all Bar Associations should be for a uniform period of two years. Thus, the Court directed that elections to the Executive Committees of all Bar Associations should be held on the same day and term/tenure of all such Executive Committees should be for a uniform period of two years. The Court clarified that the electoral rolls and elections to the Executive Committees of all such Bar Associations shall be prepared and held in accordance with their own Rules, Regulations and Byelaws.
The Court opined that the directions of tenure and to hold simultaneous elections to all the Bar Associations were consensual and thus ‘give flesh and blood’ to the principle of ‘One Bar One Vote’. The Court also opined that these consensual directions were logical corollary and natural progression of the principle of ‘One Bar One Vote’. The consensual directions should bring about uniformity, transparency, and fairness relating to the elections process of all the Bar Associations. ‘One day elections’ of all the Bar Associations should avoid the interference of members of other Bar Associations, besides avoiding overcrowding by the supporters of a candidate who was contesting elections to other Bar Associations. The fixed two-year term would enable the respective Bar Associations to work effectively for the welfare of its members and give enough time to implement various welfare schemes. It would avoid multiplicity of litigations arising before and after elections in different Bar Associations and save judicial time as there would not be frequent disruption of judicial work. These consensual directions would reduce electoral malpractices and shall ensure fair and smooth elections.
The Court observed that since an attempt was being made to bring order and accountability in the election process, it would be appropriate that a person who was elected to one Bar Association or a body such as Bar Council of Delhi or even Bar Council of India should not simultaneously hold a post in another association or body as the was that the elected representative should be able to devote his time and energy to the association/body to which he or she was elected.
Further, the Court opined that it was necessary to prepare and issue ID/Proximity Cards and RFID to all the members of all the Bar Associations in Delhi as this exercise would not only address the security concerns with regard to entry to Court premises but would also ensure free and fair elections. This way an individual practicing lawyer would carry an ID/Proximity Card clearly mentioning the Bar Association, where he primarily practices and intends to vote. The said ID/Proximity Cards should be prepared by the Registry of the Delhi High Court under the aegis and supervision of the Audit and Security and Disaster Management Committee of this Court as this would ensure that only one uniform card was issued to all the lawyers practicing in Delhi High Court and District Courts and Tribunals and would do away with the need for multiple ID/Proximity Cards.
The Court further opined that the exercise of holding a uniform election on one day for all the Bar Associations should be held only after the exercise of preparing proper ID/Proximity Cards and RFID for all lawyers was completed, so as to ensure that the elections were conducted in a fair and transparent manner. Thus, the Court directed the Registry to issue ID/Proximity Cards and RFID to all the members of the Bar Associations in Delhi within six months. The Court observed that as the terms of all the Bar Associations were going to expire in September 2024, thus the Court opined that it would be appropriate to hold the elections of all the Bar Associations on one day i.e., 19-10-2024 as it was neither practical nor feasible to hold elections to some of the Bar Associations, whose terms had already expired, in the month of April/May 2024, as there were General elections in the country and there would be unavailability of EVMs and security forces.
Further, the Court agreed with the submission of the Delhi High Court Bar Association that if the existing Bar Association did not commence the election process by a stipulated date, the said function shall be deemed to have been taken over by a committee comprising two immediate past presidents and two secretaries and by a lawyer nominated by the District Judge concerned or Registrar of the Tribunal or Registrar General of this Court. The Court opined that this committee would only take decisions to ensure that elections were conducted on time and in a fair and transparent manner and the said Committee would not exercise any other administrative function and would not be deemed to have superseded the Executive Committee of the Bar Association.
The Court opined that to ensure purity in election and to curb use of money power, the prospective candidates would not install hoardings, paste posters, or host parties to further their electoral prospects. The candidates would have permission to hold physical and virtual meetings and could use WhatsApp or social media to propagate their ideas and thoughts concerning improvements that he/she proposes to bring about in the best interest of the legal fraternity.
[Lalit Sharma v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1901, decided on 19-3-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Acting Chief Justice Manmohan
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: N. Hariharan, Senior Advocate; Pankaj Kumar Singh, Sarwan Kumar, Jyoti Kashyap, Ashish Pandey, P.S. Singh, Siddharth S. Yadav, Gautam Das, Abheet Pawan Choudhary, Prachi Joshi, Santosh Rout, Advocates; Lalit Sharma, Shannu Baghel in person
For the Respondents: Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC; Anupam Srivastava, ASC; Dayan Krishnan, Kirti Uppal, N. Hariharan, Senior Advocates; Ruchir Mishra, Mukesh Kr. Tiwari, Reba Jena Mishra, Sudeep Singh, Bhavya Sethi, Akul Mehandru, Manish Gupta, Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Sachin Jain, Shivender Sharma, Munawwar Naseem, P.S. Bindra, Sanjay Kumar, Himanshi Gupta, Sandeep Sharma, Siddharth Tripathy, Sukrit Seth, Nagender Benipal, Harsh Kumar, Kundan Lal Gupta, Manish Gupta, Pinki Kumari, Rajesh, Siddharth S. Yadav, Mohit Gupta, Rajeev Tehlan, Vishal Saxena, Dhruv Mehta, Meenakshi Garg, Seemaf Ali Fatima, Navneet Kumar, Arvind Gupta, Sanjeev Verma, Rama Rao, Vipul Ganda, Rakesh Kumar, S.K. Giri, Nirti Dua, Saurabh Kalia, Rakesh Wadhwa, Prakhar Dixit, Sarvik Singhal, N.C. Sharma, Jitender Solanki, Piyush Sharma, N.K. Kadian, Manjeet Mathur, B.D. Pandey, Bindra, Sanjay Kumar, Himanshi Gupta, Mohit Gupta, Rajeev Tehlan, Vishal Saxena, Dhruv Mehta, Meenakshi Garg, Seemaf Ali Fatima, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Sarwan Kumar, Jyoti Kashyap, Ashish Pandey, P.S. Singh, Navneet Kumar, Arvind Gupta, Sanjeev Verma, Rama Rao, Satyakam, Pradyut Kashyap, Advocates
