REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

         CIVIL APPEAL NO.   10267   OF  2010             (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16840/2010)

SUDHA        ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

PRESIDENT,  ADV.ASSN.CHENNAI  &  ORS       .....  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

J. M. PANCHAL, J.

Leave Granted

2. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment  

dated April  16, 2010 rendered by the Division Bench of the  

High Court of Judicature at Madras in Application No. 2739 of  

2009 filed in Civil Suit No.301 of 2005 and Civil Suit No. 336  

of 2005 by which the High Court has issued various directions  

regarding  the  management  of  the  Madras  High  Court  

Advocates’  Association (‘The Association’,  for  short)  and had  

approved the amended bye-laws of the Association.

3. In order to understand the controversy raised in the  

appeal, it would be necessary to notice certain facts emerging  

from the record of the case.   

In the year 1879, the Association was established.  On  

March 16, 1972 the Association was incorporated as a Society  

and  also  as  a  charitable  trust  under  the  provisions  of  

Registration of Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Act,  

1860.

Two  learned  Advocates  who  are  Members  of  the  

Association  have  filed  Civil  Suit  No.301  of  2005  seeking  

removal of the Trusteeship of defendant Nos. 1 and 3 who are  

the President and Secretary respectively of the Association and  

to direct them to submit report of accounts.  They have also  

prayed  to  frame  a  permanent  scheme  for  the  election  and  

management of the Trust.  Pending the said suit, four other  

learned  Advocates  of  the  Association  have  filed  Civil  Suit  

No.336 of  2005 to  declare  that  the  action of  the  defendant  

No.4  of  the  said  suit  i.e.  Secretary  of  the  Association  in  

notifying programme for  election of  the office bearers of  the  

2

Association and the resolution dated March 24, 2005 of the  

General Body of the Association appointing the defendant Nos.  

17  to  22  of  the  said  suit,  as  members  of  the  Election  

Committee  to  conduct  the  election  are  bad  in  law  and  to  

restrain the defendant Nos. 1 to 16 as well as 17 to 22 from  

taking any action pursuant to the declaration of the election  

programme.   

The Secretary of the Association has filed Civil Suit No.  

337 of 2005 to restrain the defendants named therein from  

interfering with  his functioning as Secretary till expiration of  

his tenure i.e. till April, 2006.  

4. It  may  be  stated  that  the  above  numbered  suits  

have  been  instituted  in  the  High  Court  on  its  original  

jurisdiction and are pending disposal.   The record indicates  

that in view of the pendency of above numbered suits every  

year the learned Advocates used to file different applications in  

the  suits  seeking  direction  of  the  High  Court  for  holding  

elections  of  the  office  bearers  of  the  Association  and  

appropriate directions were given by the High Court from time  

3

to time.   One learned advocate Mr. Thiru R. Karuppan filed an  

application bearing No.3101 of 2007 in Civil  Suit  No.301 of  

2005 seeking his impleadment in the suit and to restrain the  

members  of  the  Election  Committee  from  scrutinizing  

applications received from the members of the Association for  

contesting  election  of  office  bearers  of  the  Association  and  

from conducting the election.  It was also prayed therein to  

appoint  tellers  committee  to  conduct  elections  of  the  

association.   The  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  Madras  High  

Court, by an order dated April 17, 2007, appointed a Tellers  

Committee  consisting  of  1)  Thiru  R.  Thyagarajan,  Senior  

Advocate,  2)  Thiru  N.G.R.  Prasad,  Advocate  3)  Thiru  C.  

Selvaraju,  Senior  Advocate  4)  Thiru K.M.  Ramesh,  Advocate  

and 5) Thiru Ashok Menon, Advocate to complete the entire  

election process for the year 2007.  Again for the year 2008-

09, the High Court was approached by the learned Advocates  

and  a  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court  passed  the  

following order on March 17, 2008 :-

“It  is  represented  by  Mr.  G.  Rajagopal,  Senior  Counsel  that  the  Committee  was  appointed  by  the Office Bearers of the High Court Association  

4

to  give  recommendation  for  amending  the  bye- laws and that the said Committee is going to file  a  draft  amendment  in  the  bye-laws  before  the  Association by 25.3.2008.  The learned President  of  the  said  Association  would  represent  that  thereafter  they  will  convene  a  General  Body  Meeting  for  getting  approval  of  the  draft  amendment of the bye-laws by the General Body.  Dr.  G.  Krishnamurthy,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  plaintiff  in  C.S.  No.301  of  2005  would  represent  that  if  the  bye-laws  are  amended  nothing will survive in all the suits.”

The  record  further  shows  that  thereafter  on  April  11,  

2008 an order was passed by a learned Single Judge of the  

High Court directing the elections to be conducted on April 29,  

2008 under the supervision of the Tellers Committee.  Again  

for conducting election of the Association for the year 2009-

2010, the High Court was approached by the learned members  

of the Association.  At the instance of the learned Advocates  

appearing for the parties, the matter was posted for hearing  

before  the  Division Bench of  the  High Court.   The  Division  

Bench of the High Court heard the learned Counsel for the  

parties and parties themselves, at length.   After considering  

the overall submissions made by the learned Counsel  for the  

5

parties,  the  Division  Bench  by  order  dated  July  27,  2009  

constituted three Committees, for different purposes, namely:  

i) to prepare the list of Members of the Association who are  

eligible  to  vote  in  the  election  and  who  have  enrolled  

themselves as members as on 31.3.2009 for the election for  

the year 2009-10.

ii) to frame/amend bye-laws for the Association; and

iii) to conduct the election.

To  verify  the  list  of  Members  of  the  Association  upto  

31.3.2009,  the  High Court  appointed  the  following learned  

Advocates as member of the Committee :-

i) Sri S.V. Jayaraman, Senior Advocate  

ii) Sri T.R. Mani, Senior Advocate

iii) Sri L. Chandra Kumar, Advocate

iv) Any other Advocate/Advocates as decided by the above  

named three members.

v) Any  officer/officers/staff  as  decided  by  the  first  three  

members.

6

To frame the bye-laws, the following learned Advocates  

were appointed as Members of the Committee :-

i) Sri S.V. Jayaram, Senior Advocate

ii) Sri Ashok Menon, Advocate

iii) Mrs. Sudha Ramalingam, Advocate  

iv) Some other Advocate/Advocates as decided by the above  

three members.  

To conduct the election, the following learned Advocates  

were appointed as members of the Tellers Committee.

i) Sri. G. Rajagopal, Senior Advocate  

ii) Sri. L. Chandra Kumar, Advocate

iii) Selvi P.T. Asha, Advocate

iv) Any other Advocate/Advocates as decided by the above  

three members.

By  an  order  dated  September  18,  2009  the  Division  

Bench extended the time for scrutiny of the list of Members till  

November 1, 2009.  The Division Bench of the High Court, by  

an  order  dated  January  12,  2010,  issued  guidelines  for  

finalizing the list of eligible members, whose names were to be  

7

approved  by  the  High  Court   in  the  presence  of  parties  

concerned including Sri S.V. Jayaraman, Senior Advocate and  

Mr.  T.R.  Mani,  Senior  Advocate.   Again  by  an  order  dated  

February 5, 2010 time was extended upto February 22, 2010  

for verification of the list of Members in view of request made  

by Mr. T.R. Mani, learned Senior Advocate who was one of the  

members of the Committee constituted for verification of the  

list  of members of the Association upto 31-03-2009.    The  

Division Bench by an order dated February 22, 2010 in the  

presence  of  Mr.  S.V.  Jayaraman,  Senior  Advocate,  Mr.  T.R.  

Mani,  Senior  Advocate,  Mr.  Elephant  G.  Rajendran,  Mr.  R.  

Karuppan,  Mr.  S.  Prabhakaran  representing  Mr.  Abdul  

Rahman and Dr.  G.  Krishnamurthy,  directed the  respective  

counsel of the parties, to sit with the Committee constituted to  

frame bye-laws of the Association and to finalise the draft bye-

laws.  By the said order time was granted upto March 6, 2010  

to the learned Advocates to undertake the exercise of framing/  

amending bye-laws.  Again by an order dated March 8, 2010,  

the  Court  took  on  record  the  copy  of  the  draft  bye-laws  

produced by Mr. S.V. Jayaraman, Senior Advocate and noted  

8

the,   necessary  amendments  suggested  therein  by  the  

respective  learned  counsel  for  the  parties.  The  Court   also  

granted  further  time  to  Mr.  T.R.  Mani,  Senior  Advocate,  to  

finalise the list of eligible members of the  Association.  The  

record  shows  that  by  an  order  dated  March  15,  2010  the  

Division  Bench  of  the  Madras  High  Court  directed  the  

Committee constituted for verification of the list of members of  

the Association to circulate its  report by March 22, 2010.  So  

far  as  draft  bye-laws  recommended  by  the  Committee  

constituted for  the  said purpose  were concerned,  they were  

noted and orders thereon were reserved.  

5. Meanwhile,  a  representation  was  given  to  the  

Hon’ble  the  Chief  Justice  of  Madras  High  Court  making  

allegations  against  the  learned  Judges  constituting  the  

Division Bench as if they had overstepped their jurisdiction in  

the matter of amendment of the bye-laws of the Association.  

The  Hon’ble  the  Chief  Justice  had  forwarded  the  said  

representation to the Hon’ble Judges constituting the Division  

Bench.  The Division Bench hearing the matter had certain  

9

reservations about the representation said to have been made  

by a few Advocates who had not raised any objection before  

the  Court.   The  Division  Bench  therefore  heard  the  matter  

again at length.  All the respective learned Counsel expressed  

their  regret  for  such  representation  which  was  sent  to  the  

Hon’ble the Chief Justice of High Court by a few handful of  

Advocates and they also requested the Court to proceed with  

the matter  and to pass order.   The Division Bench insisted  

that the learned Advocates present should file affidavits to the  

said effect.  The record shows that accordingly affidavits were  

filed.   Thereafter,  various suggestions were given relating to  

the  amendment  of  the  bye-laws  of  the  Association.   The  

Division  Bench  was  not  inclined  to  consider  those  

amendments except a few suggestions which were accepted by  

most of the members who were present in the Court.  Thus,  

the High Court by judgment dated April 16, 2010 approved the  

draft  bye-laws  of  the  Society  which  has  given  rise  to  the  

instant appeal.   

10

6. It may be mentioned that SLP (C) No. 16840 of 2010  

out  of  which  the  present  appeal  arises  was  placed  for  

preliminary hearing before the Court on May 24, 2010 during  

summer vacation and after hearing the learned counsel for the  

appellant the Court had passed the following order:-

“Permission to file special leave petition is granted. Issue  notice,  returnable  in  six  weeks,  dasti,  in  addition.  

In the meanwhile, further proceedings in Civil  Suit  Nos.301 and 336 of  2005 and operation  of  order  dated  16.4.2010  passed  by  the  Division  Bench  of  the  Madras  High  Court  shall  remain  stayed.”

It is also deserved to be stated that the present appellant  

had filed application No.1473 of 2010 in Civil Suit No. 301 of  

2005 with a prayer to implead her as one of the defendants.  

As per the application made in the Special  Leave Petition it  

transpires that the Division Bench of the High Court did not  

consider the same and therefore application was filed before  

this Court seeking permission to file special leave petition.   

11

7. The  special  leave  petition  was  thereafter  listed  

before  the  Court  on  July  26,  2010  and  after  hearing  the  

learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and  on  their  request,  the  

matter was adjourned to August 3, 2010.  Again on August 3,  

2010 the Court had heard the learned counsel for the parties  

at great length and in view of consensus arrived at between  

the  learned  counsels  appearing  in  the  matter  following  

directions were issued :-

“1. The extraordinary meeting of the General Body  of  the  Madras  High  Court  Advocates’  Association  will be held at 1.30 p.m. on 7.9.2010.

2. The learned Secretary of  the Bar Association  will  give notice to the members of the Association  stating  that  the  extraordinary  meeting  of  the  General Body will be held at 1.30p.m. on 7.9.2010.

3. The meeting of the General Body shall consider  the question of approving the proposed amendment  of the bye-laws.

4. The extraordinary meeting of the General Body  shall  be  supervised  by  the  following  learned  advocates  who  are  members  of  the  Tellers  Committee :-

(i) Sri G. Rajagopalan, Sr. Adv. (ii) Sri L. Chandrakumar, Adv. (iii) Selvi P.T. Asha, Adv.

12

5. Unless  and until,  the  amended  bye-laws  are  approved  at  the  extraordinary  meeting  of  the  General Body of the Madras High Court Advocates’  Association, the same shall not be implemented in  any manner.”

8. Pursuant to the  above mentioned directions given  

by the Court, an extraordinary meeting of the General Body of  

the  Madras  High  Court  Advocates’  Association was held  on  

September  7,  2010.    Further,  in  compliance  of  the  above  

mentioned order of this Court the Honorary Secretary of the  

Association,  under  the  supervision  of  the  Teller  Committee  

had issued a notice on 16.08.2010 informing the members of  

the Association that the Extraordinary General Body meeting  

of the Association would be held at 1.30 p.m. on 7.09.2010  

and the copies  of  the  notice  were  exhibited  at  conspicuous  

places in the High Court premises.  The record shows that the  

said notice was also published in two newspapers that is one  

Hindu  (English)  dated  22.08.2010  and  Dhinamalar  (Tamil)  

dated 22.08.2010.   The  Teller  Committee  had further  given  

instructions  to  widely  circulate  a  copy  of  the  notice  of  the  

Extraordinary  meeting  of  the  Association  to  be  held  on  

13

7.9.2010 along with copy of  old bye-laws,  copy of  proposed  

amendments in the bye-laws, orders of the Supreme Court, an  

order  of  the  Division  Bench,  amongst  Members  of  the  

Association through cause list distributors and also delivered  

the same to all the members in the chambers allotted to them.  

The  record  shows  that  the  resolution  as  to  whether  the  

Members of the Association present were giving their assent  

for approving their new bye-laws or rejecting the new bye-laws  

was put to vote.   The record would further show that more  

than  90%  of  the  members  present  accorded  their  assent  

approving the new bye-laws by raising of hands and saying  

‘Yes’.  Therefore, the resolution adopting the new bye-laws was  

passed.  

9. The  resolution  passed  by  the  Members  of  the  

Association at the Extraordinary meeting of the General Body  

of  Madras  High  Court  Advocates’  Association  held  on  

September  7,  2010  was  sent  to  this  Court  by  the  learned  

Members  of  the  Tellers  Committee.   When  the  matter  was  

taken up for hearing on October 4, 2010, the learned counsel  

14

for the appellant had stated at the Bar that he had received a  

copy of the Resolution dated September 10, 2010 passed at  

the  Extraordinary  General  Body  Meeting  of  the  Association  

held on September 7, 2010 and prayed to adjourn the matter  

by two weeks to enable him to file response/affidavit to the  

Resolution.   The  prayer  was  accepted  and  it  was  ordered  

accordingly.  

10. Thereafter,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  

had filed objections to the report filed before this Court by the  

learned  Members  of  the  Tellers  Committee  alongwith  the  

objection  affidavits  sworn  by  certain  learned  Advocates  

practicing in the Madras High Court.  The learned counsel for  

the respondents had contended that question relating to the  

validity of the amended bye-laws should not be considered by  

this Court and that the appellant should be relegated to the  

alternative remedy available under the law.  Thereupon, the  

learned counsel for the appellant had pointed out that the bye-

laws had been amended pursuant to the orders passed by this  

Court  on August 3,  2010 and, therefore,  no other  Court  or  

15

forum would examine the question of validity of the amended  

bye-laws because of judicial discipline and propriety.  On this  

submission being made the Court had decided to examine the  

validity of the amendments made in the bye-laws.  

11. The  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  submitted  

that the Resolution passed on September 7, 2010 should be  

set aside and/or modified because proper audience was not  

given to all Members of the Association who had attended the  

Extraordinary Meeting of the General Body of the Association.  

It was contended that most of the members had requested the  

Members of the Teller Committee to consider adoption and/or  

otherwise of the amendments made in the bye-laws by a secret  

ballot but the said reasonable request was arbitrarily turned  

down by the Teller Committee and the Resolution was passed  

by show of hands which was illegal.  It was argued that clause  

9 of the amended bye-laws refers to the voting rights of the  

resident,  non-resident  and  associate  members  but  before  

adopting the said clause no meticulous discussion had taken  

place  which  vitiates  the  Resolution.   What  was  maintained  

16

before the Court was that the Clause 12 of the amended bye-

laws relating to the eligibility to contest the election and cast  

vote  which  prescribes  minimum  period  of  three  years  to  

become eligible to contest election is unreasonable and liable  

to  be  set  aside.   It  was  pleaded  that  the  Association  

Membership  should  not  have  been taken  as  a  criterion  for  

deciding eligibility  to contest  election and cast  vote  but  the  

date of enrolment in the Bar Council ought to have been taken  

into  consideration  for  determining  eligibility  to  contest  the  

election  and  or  cast  vote.   The  learned  counsel  further  

emphasized  that  Clause  10  of  the  amended  bye-laws  

prescribes a very high amount of Rs. 2,000/- as entry fee and  

yearly subscription of Rs.1,000/- for Junior Members of the  

Bar.   Whereas  in  case  of  renewal  an  exorbitant  sum  of  

Rs.5,000/-  is  unilaterally  prescribed  which  is  illogical  and  

deserves to be set aside.  According to the learned counsel for  

the  appellant  Clause  17  of  the  amended  bye-laws  which  

prescribes deposit to be made for contesting the elections is  

exorbitant as well as unjust and, therefore, this Court should  

reduce the same reasonably.  What was maintained before the  

17

Court was that the four amendments mentioned above in the  

bye-laws  are  against  the  interest  of  the  learned  Junior  

Members of the Association as well as entire legal fraternity.  

And, therefore, appropriate directions should be given to the  

Teller  Committee  to  convene  another  Extraordinary  General  

Body Meeting of the Association for considering the question  

whether the amendments in the bye-laws should be adopted  

or not.  It was also prayed on behalf of the learned counsel for  

appellant  that  direction  should  be  given  to  consider  the  

question of adoption of those amendments by a secret ballot.   

12. All  the  other  learned  counsels  appearing  for  the  

respondents  without  exception  have  strongly  opposed  the  

prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant.  It was  

pointed out by them that pursuant to the direction given by  

this Court an Extraordinary Meeting of the General  Body of  

the Association was held wherein the amendment made to the  

bye-laws was carried out by majority of the Members who were  

present.  According to the learned counsel of the respondents  

after passing of the order dated August 3, 2010 the instant  

18

Special Leave Petition itself become infructuous and, therefore  

the  directions  as  sought  for  by  the  learned counsel  for  the  

appellant to again convene an Extraordinary Meeting to the  

General Body of the Association should not be accepted at all.  

13. This Court  has heard the learned counsel  for  the  

parties at great length and considered the documents forming  

part of the instant petition.  

14. From the Report-cum-Minutes of the Extraordinary  

General Body meeting of the Association held on September 7,  

2010,  it  is  evident  that  the  order  passed  by  this  Court  on  

August  3,  2010  was  taken  into  consideration.   Before  the  

Extraordinary General Body Meeting was held on September  

7, 2010 the learned Honorary Secretary of the Association had  

given notice to the other learned Members of the Association  

stating  that  the  Extraordinary  General  Body Meeting  of  the  

Association would be held on September 7, 2010.  It was also  

specified in the notice that the Meeting of the General Body is  

convened to consider the question of approving the proposed  

amendment made to the bye-laws.  The report of  the Teller  

19

Committee indicates that the meeting was supervised by the  

learned  Advocates  who  were  appointed  as  Members  of  the  

Teller  Committee.   The  notice  issued  by  the  Honorary  

Secretary  of  the  Association  was  exhibited  at  conspicuous  

places at the High Court premises.  The said notice was also  

published  in  two  newspapers  i.e.  Hindu  (English)  dated  

22.8.2010  and  Dhinamalar  (Tamil)  dated  22.8.2010.   The  

Minutes would further indicate that on the instructions of the  

Teller  Committee,  a  copy of  the  notice  of  the  Extraordinary  

General Meeting of the Association along with the copy of old  

bye-laws,  copy of  amendments to be made in the bye-laws,  

orders of the Supreme Court, orders of the Division Bench of  

the  High  Court  etc.  were  widely  circulated  amongst  the  

Members  of  the  Association  through cause  list  distributors.  

The notice with materials mentioned above was also delivered  

in  the  chambers  of  all  the  learned Advocates  including  the  

Members  of  the  Association.   The  report  indicates  that  the  

meeting Hall of the Association was too small to accommodate  

the large number of members who were expected to attend the  

meeting and, therefore, with the permission of the Registry the  

20

meeting was arranged in the meeting Hall on the 5th floor of  

the  Annexed  chamber  building  of  the  High  Court.   As  

mentioned  in  the  report  of  the  Teller  Committee,  the  

arrangements were again supervised by the Teller Committee.  

Therefore, in these circumstances, the grievance made by the  

learned counsel for the appellant that proper meeting was not  

convened has no substance.  The report indicates that after  

the meeting was convened at about 1.30 p.m. the discussion  

had gone on till 3.30 p.m.  Thereafter, Mr. G. Rajagopalan had  

informed  the  members  that  he  had  received  request  from  

certain learned Members of the Association to conduct a secret  

ballot  and  as  per  the  report  of  the  Teller  Committee  this  

request was put to the General Body for their opinion.  The  

report  of  the  Teller  Committee  without  mincing  words  

mentions  that  majority  of  the  learned  Members  who  were  

present in the meeting had desired that the resolution should  

be  put  to  vote  by  show of  hands  immediately.   Under  the  

circumstances the grievance made by the learned counsel for  

the  appellant  that  the  meeting  should  not  have  been  

conducted in the manner in which it was conducted and that  

21

secret  ballot  should  have  been  permitted  cannot  be  

entertained.  

15. Another grievance made by the learned counsel for  

the  appellant  that  Members  of  the  Association  were  not  

permitted to speak at the meeting to express their views for  

consideration  and,  therefore,  the  Resolution  should  be  set  

aside lacks factual basis.  So far as permission to speak at the  

meeting  is  concerned  the  report  of  the  Teller  Committee  

indicates that before holding meeting the learned Advocates  

who were desirous of addressing the gathering were asked to  

put their names in the list.   As per the report of the Teller  

Committee 30 learned Advocates had shown their willingness  

and  they  were  permitted  and  had  in  fact  addressed  the  

gathering.  As per the Report, the discussion had continued  

upto 3.30 p.m. and thereafter the proposed amendment was  

put  to  vote  which  was  approved  by  show of  hands  by  the  

Members who were present at the meeting.  As per the Report  

more than 90% of the learned members of the Association who  

were present had given their assent by saying ‘Yes’.  Thus, it is  

22

wrong to suggest that the learned Members of the Association  

were not permitted to speak at the meeting.  The experience of  

one and all is such that in such meetings chaos takes place  

and normally the learned Members of the Association shout at  

each  other.   In  order  to  avoid  such  an  eventuality  before  

holding the meeting the names of those Advocates who were  

desirous of addressing the meeting were enlisted.  The device  

adopted  by  the  learned  Members  of  the  Teller  Committee  

cannot be said to be arbitrary at all.   

16. The  argument  that  the  four  clauses  mentioned  

earlier are against the interest of the legal fraternity in general  

and  against  the  interest  of  the  learned  Junior  Members  in  

particular  who  were  practicing  in  the  High  Court  and,  

therefore,  fresh  directions  as  prayed for  should  be  given  is  

difficult to accept.  The Teller Committee had already convened  

a  meeting  pursuant  to  a  consensus  order  passed  by  this  

Court.  In the SLP the main grievance made was that the High  

Court had no jurisdiction to interfere in the internal matters of  

the Association and, therefore, the directions given and/or the  

23

approval granted to the amended bye-laws should be set aside.  

As stated earlier, order dated August 3, 2010 was passed on  

consensus of  atleast  15 Advocates who were present in the  

Court room including the learned Advocate for the appellant.  

This Court while exercising powers under Article 136 of the  

Constitution  would  hardly  be  justified  in  interfering  with  

internal  matters  of  a  Bar  Association.   The  Association  

includes Members as learned Advocates who are practicing in  

the Court.  It is not difficult for the learned Advocates of the  

Association who are practicing law day in and day out in the  

Court rooms to understand as to what is in their interest and,  

therefore, this Court would hardly have any occasion to tender  

any advice to the learned Advocates of the Association in the  

matters  relating  to  the  internal  affairs  of  the  Association.  

Therefore,  to expect this Court to go on giving directions to  

convene meeting is neither practical nor expected of this Court  

while exercising powers under Article 136 of the Constitution.  

17. The  legal  profession  is  a  solemn  and  serious  

occupation.  It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it  

24

are its Hon’ble Members.  Although, the entry to the profession  

can be had by acquiring merely the qualification prescribed by  

different universities, the honour as a professional has to be  

maintained by its Members by their exemplary conduct both  

in and outside the Court.  The legal profession is different from  

other professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only  

an individual  but the administration of justice which is the  

foundation of the civilized society.  Both as a leading member  

of the intelligentsia of the society and as an intelligent citizen,  

the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others both  

in  his  professional  and in  his  private  and public  life.   The  

different  Associations  of  the  Members  of  the  Bar  are  being  

formed to show the strength of lawyers in case of necessity.  

The  lawyers  while  exercising  vote  in  an  election  of  office  

bearers  of  the  Association  must  conduct  himself  in  an  

exemplary  manner.   Those  who  are  concerned  about  high  

standard of the profession are supposed to take appropriate  

action to see that the election takes place peacefully and in an  

organized manner.  Many a times it is noticed that those who  

are not lawyers get entry into the Association room by putting  

25

on merely black coat as at the time of election the feelings are  

running high.  Such elements take undue advantage of the  

situation  and  bring  a  bad  name  to  the  Association  of  the  

Advocates.  Therefore, to deter such elements the amendments  

have been carried out in the bye-laws.  Those amendments  

carried out in the bye-laws of the Association can hardly be  

regarded  as  against  the  legal  fraternity  in  general  and  as  

against  Junior  Members  of  the  Bar  in  particular.   In  every  

society  or  association  some code  of  conduct  has to  be  laid  

down as to in which manner the voting should be done and  

who would be competent to vote.  The Association of Advocates  

are expected to rise to the occasion as they; are responsible to  

uphold the dignity of Courts and majesty of law and to prevent  

interference in administration of justice.  It is the duty of the  

Associations to ensure that there is no unprofessional and/or  

unbecoming conduct by the Advocates at the time of election  

of the office bearers of the Association.  This being their duty it  

was necessary to amend the bye-laws of the Association.  The  

amendment  prescribing  that  a  Member  of  the  Association  

having practice of less than two years would not be entitled to  

26

vote or that a member of the Association who has not put in  

three years of  practice  would not  be entitled to contest  the  

election are reasonable and are meant for enhancing status  

and image of  members of  the Bar.   These restrictions have  

been brought to uphold the dignity of Courts and majesty of  

law  and  to  ensure  that  there  is  no  unprofessional  and/or  

unbecoming conduct.   The other  amendments to which the  

learned counsel for the appellant has taken exception also do  

not impose unreasonable restriction on the members of  the  

Association.  Clause 12 of the amended bye-laws refers to the  

eligibility criterion to cast vote and to contest the election and  

the same has not been regarded as unreasonable.  Clause 10  

of  the  amended  bye-laws  prescribes  entry  fee  and  yearly  

subscription for the Members of the Bar.  The prescription of  

Rs. 2,000/- as entry fee and yearly subscription of Rs.1,000/-  

as well  as Rs.2,000/- can hardly be regarded as exorbitant.  

One  who is  a  member  of  the  Association  of  Advocates  can  

realize that several expenditures have to be incurred by the  

Association on behalf of its Members.  Further staff has to be  

employed to carry out day to day instructions and they have to  

27

be  paid  reasonable  salary.   Having  regard  to  the  

circumstances prevailing as on today, the prescription of entry  

fee  or  yearly  subscription  can  hardly  be  regarded  as  

exorbitant.  It is also noticed in several Bar Associations that  

certain  Members  without  making  payment  of  entry  fee  or  

yearly  subscription  enjoy  the  facilities  provided  by  the  

Association.  In some cases it is found that some advocates  

become  Member  of  the  Association  by  making  payment  of  

yearly subscription initially but thereafter do not renew their  

membership and go on enjoying all the facilities provided by  

the  Association.   Under  the  circumstances,  the  stipulation  

that  in  case  of  non-renewal  of  membership,  a  member  will  

have to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for reviving his membership  

can hardly be regarded as arbitrary.   

18. Again clause 17 which prescribes deposit of amount  

for contesting the elections cannot be regarded as arbitrary.  If  

no  amount  is  required  to  be  deposited  for  contesting  the  

elections  the  same  is  likely  to  result  into  chaos  and  

28

undeserving elements would take advantage of the situation In  

the lighter  vein someone mentioned in the Court  that  if  no  

amount is required to be deposited for contesting elections all  

the members of the association would contest elections and  

there would be no voters.  Therefore, the plea that the amount  

required to be deposited for contesting the elections should be  

reduced to a reasonable level cannot be accepted nor the said  

clause  be  regarded  as  illegal  or  arbitrary.   Lastly,  the  

contention that the amendments in the bye-laws are against  

and not in the interest of the junior members of the Bar and,  

therefore, appropriate direction to convene a fresh meeting of  

the Extraordinary General Body of the Association should be  

issued  has  no  substance.   Except  stating  that  the  

amendments carried out in the bye-laws by thumping majority  

are against and not in the interest of learned Junior Members  

of  the  Bar,  it  could  not  be  pointed  out  as  to  how  the  

amendments  are  against  the  interest  of  junior  members  of  

Bar.   Thus,  it  is  difficult  for  this  Court  to  accept  such an  

argument advanced at the Bar.   

    19. The  

29

Report  of  the  Teller  Committee  indicates  that  the  learned  

Members  of  the  Teller  Committee  had  performed  yeoman  

service  to  the  Members  of  the  Association  for  which  they  

deserve applaud.  On the facts and in the circumstances of the  

case this Court is of the opinion that after passing of the order  

dated August 3, 2010 the main grievance made by the learned  

counsel for the appellant that the High Court should not have  

interfered  with  the  internal  matters  of  the  Association  by  

giving  directions  stood  redressed.   Therefore,  the  learned  

counsel for the respondents are right in contending that the  

petition  had  become  infructuous  and,  therefore,  no  further  

directions should be given by this Court.   Though it was not  

necessary  for  this  Court  to  examine  the  validity  of  the  

amendments carried out in the bye-laws, the said exercise was  

undertaken by the Court only because of the insistence of the  

learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  and  to  maintain  

transparency, because the Teller Committee had undertaken  

the huge task pursuant to consent order passed by this Court.  

The Resolution passed on September 7, 2010 is perfectly legal  

and, therefore, the same is hereby upheld.

30

20. The net result of the above discussion is that now this  

Court  does  not  find  any  substance  in  the  appeal  and,  

therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.   

21. For  the  foregoing  reasons  the  appeal  fails  and  is  

dismissed and there is no order as to costs.

………………………………J.          (J.M. PANCHAL)

……………………………….J. NEW DELHI        (GYAN SUDHA MISRA) OCTOBER  22, 2010

31