Sudha vs President,Adv.Assn.Chennai & Ors

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.

2 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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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.

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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.

11 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.

12 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.

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

29

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

30

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.

31 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