“Should be VERY interesting,” tweeted lawyer DK Mahant under the handle @DKMahant at 4:02pm in anticipation, as he made his way to the SCBA meeting. At 4:38pm at the meeting, he tweeted: “All lawyers ridiculing the judgement by Supreme Court in SCBA matter. Heated exchange.”
The subject of ridicule was the ‘one vote per bar association member’ Supreme Court judgment from September 2011, in which the court decided that those voting in SCBA elections must give an undertaking that they would not vote in any other bar associations. [Download the judgment here]
It is understood that SCBA members were upset that Parekh and the SCBA had not done enough to oppose the judgment between December 2011 and January of this year. Parekh was elected to the SCBA in a narrow election victory against outgoing SCBA president Ram Jethmalani in May 2011, which Jethamalani had immediately challenged.
At 4:42pm, PH Parekh started addressing the assembled SCBA crowd. Only two minutes later, at 4:44pm, Jethmalani tried to address the meeting during Parekh’s speech but then sat down again, according to Mahant.
But by 4:46pm Jethmalani had possession of the microphone. Legal journalist Sumit Nagpal, tweeting under the handle @sumit_nagpal, sent an update: “Mr. Jethmalani starts addressing the meeting. Silence now!!”
“Awesome,” commented Mahant at the time.
At around 4:48pm “Mr. Jethmalani [was] cautioning advocates from using strong language against Supreme Court & Judges”, reported Mahant but by 4:50pm Parekh was speaking again.
According to Mahant’s live Twitter update lawyers were objecting to Parekh at that time.
Next, Parekh said that the lawyers at the meeting should pay attention to Rajiv Khosla’s proposed motion, which proposed to dissolve the committee that was formed to implement the Supreme Court ‘one bar one vote’ judgment.
Furthermore, the resolution said that the SCBA should take action against advocates who had appeared in that case, allegedly without filing a vakalatnama. Third, the motion also opposed that lawyers contesting, voting or taking part in the SCBA elections must have a minimum of 50 Supreme Court appearances per year.
Commotion followed at 4:45pm. “Police might be required,” quipped Mahant.
Then PH Parekh dropped the unexpected bombshell announcement: “Mr. Parekh resigns as president of SCBA. He announced on stage,” said Mahant.
Mahant later told Legally India that although under the SCBA rules a written resignation was required, it would be hard for Parekh to undo his verbal resignation with hundreds of advocates present at the meeting, which was also recorded on video.
“No more temporary members in SCBA. Awesome. Face reality SCBA,” commented a tweet by Mahant. “Committee of Mr. Jethmalani & Mr. Khosla to take charge for now.”
Parekh was unreachable for comment at the time of going to press.
Comments
The suggestion made by the expert committee that a lawyer with 90 entries in Supreme Court, which fact can be confirmed from Supreme Court proximity card usage, shall be a non-temporary member with right to vote is a fair suggestion and merits acceptance by members.
The drama that unfolded today in Supreme Court lawns was unbecoming of lawyers. Clearly a large group of non Supreme Court lawyers led by the likes of Rajiv Khosla (who I would say is a non Supreme Court lawyer) came to attend this meeting to make a point - that significant control over SCBA's affairs shall rest with non Supreme Court lawyers. This is simply not right in as much as non SC lawyers will come to SC only to vote and a lousy SCBA adversely affects the interests of regular SC practitioners.
Anyhow, here's hoping that sanity prevails and lawyers respect the Supreme Court judgment and the rule of law. Several lawyers today openly abused the Supreme Court judgment, which is just not right. File a review or seek a recall of the order - that is the right approach - but Supreme Court judgment cannnot be criticized in such manner by non Supreme Court lawyers on Supreme Court premises.
who gave them right to create different type of exemption list without consultation or discussion with remembers of SCBA. They argued the matter, they themselves proposed their name and them themselves started acting subjectively. even there action was immoral and unethical to know how you can kindly read the letters circulated by Supreme Court advocate association , that is still on notice board of scba and association notice board as well as on Facebook page
SCBA cannot be a monopoly of few lawyers and some of them are racial in nature (read the full judgement)
Due to malafide and illegal actions of implementation committee, many people got confused about the judgement. Implementation committee gave bad name to judiciary. ( I can prove how wrong and misleading facts produced before court and how they invited court to take decision on matter purely internal matter of SCBA. they set bad trend and committed misconduct towards fellow members without there approval.
P. P Rao Argument in the matter is divisive , racial and unacceptable in nation integrity. (read the judgement supreme court bar association vs B, D. Kausik C.A no 3401/2003
it is mr parekh who called mr rajeev khosla as first speaker though his name in was much below in speakers list.
not only that mr parekh ask mr khosla to read the resolutions and put it on vote though the resolutions was requisitioned by us. Mr parekh gave much more privileged and encouragement to mr khosla and even called him many times on dias for the reson best known to him. supreme Court Advocate Association (for all development on issue and letters circulated by it and about movements of saving scba on Facebook page supremecourt barassociation or )
resolution passed in the meetinmg has been signed by 11 executive committee member on register(including office-bearer and Senior member) .
resignation of Mr parekh is nothing but face saving exercise after resolution put to vote and passed unanimously, none opposided the resolution (in one resolution 3-4 person raised hand against the resolution.)
mr ram jethmalani, rajeev datta, Jitender sharma, pramod swarup and many other sr, advocate was witnessed to the proceedings . proceding were largely peaceful but unorganized because with vested interest to disrupt the proceedings they provided very poor facilities, very few chair(hardly 100-150), very poor audio quality, mic was not properly;y working and cramped space for large gathering which liad to space crunch.
AND as lawyers, we should uphold the law; not break it every time it suits us: example when there is an election in any of the Bar associations. How many of the members for the elections of DHCBA did NOT send any messages for elections held recently. Or How many of the members for the elections of DBA have NOT sent in any messages for the upcoming elections?
The fact remains that today there is no "new/young/junior/non-practicing member in Supreme Court" (defined below) who can categorically put her name on at least 50 Vakalats.
I will come to the Supreme Court and give a copy of Universal's Summary of The Constitution of India to any ADVOCATE who can provide me even one name of an advocate who qualifies the definition below AND has at least 50 vakalats in her name in either the High Court or the Supreme Court. Do send in your comments with your correct email.
Definition of "new/young/junior/non-practicing member in Supreme Court: Advocate who has no previous family member, however far the relationship, or uncle or friend IN the legal profession in New Delhi, and has a legal enrollment date after 2006.
Executive Committee of Supreme Court Bar association rectified the resolutions Passed At GBM . Accepted the resignation of P. H. Parekh. Expelled Mr P.P.Rao, Mr K.K Venugopal, Mr Ranjit Kumar from primary members of SCBA .
I personally appreciate and give credit to Kian Ganz & Prachi Shrivastava and Mahant for publishing the true proceedings (as news was blocked from print media), The downloaded copy of the web news of legally India is widely circulated among supreme Court Bar association members and also submitted to Chief justice of India .
Executive Committee of SCBA also mentioned about the legallyindia.com . Thanks kian and team for true it..
The following were present:
Mr. Pramod Swarup, (Sr.),
Chairperson Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, Asst. Secretary/Convener
Mr. K.C. Kaushik, Hony. Secretary Ms.Kumud L.Das
Mr.Umesh Babu Chaurasia
Mr. Anurag Pandey
Ms. Meera Bhatia
Ms.Shrabani Chakrabarty
Mr. Onkar Prasad
THE MEETING IS PRESIDED OVER BY
MR.PRAMOD SWARUP (SR.)
Since the President has tendered his resignation which was accepted by the General Body Meeting on 16.1.2012 and the Vice President though requested to preside over the meeting refused to attend the meeting, hence all the EC members present today have requested Mr. Pramod Swarup, Sr. Executive Committee to preside over the meeting.
The Executive Committee meeting is called to order. The quorum is complete. The Executive Committee in its earlier meeting had sanctioned that General Body Meeting should be convened on 16.1.2012 in the Supreme Court Lawns at 4.15 PM, whereby the meeting was called and around 1500 members of the SCBA were present. Mr. P.H. Parekh, (Sr. Advocate) President SCBA presided over the meeting. Mr.Rakesh K. Khanna, (Sr. Advocate) Vice President, Mr.Rajiv Dutta (Sr.Advocate) Executive Committee were also present on the dais. Shri Ram Jethmalani (Sr.Advocate) was also requested to address the meeting. After the speeches were made by the respected members, Mr. Parekh suggested that the resolution should be initiated by Mr. Rajiv Khosla and with his consent Mr. Khosla read over the resolution, which was put to vote and unanimously passed by the General Body Meeting. The Resolution is as follows:
1. Under the Rule making powers of SCBA (General Body) it is resolved that the judgment of Honble Supreme Court dated 26.9.2011 passed in the case of SCBA Vs. B.D. Kaushik should not be given effect to.
2. The Implementation Committee proposed by the Honble Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 26th September 2011 passed in the case of SCBA Vs. B.D. Kaushik has itself ignored the judgment and is left with no authority to issue any list of the regular practicing members of the SCBA as it has acted in a manner which is detrimental to the interest of members of SCBA and therefore, the Implementation Committee stands dissolved.
3. The members of Implementation Committee, namely, (i) Shri P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate, (ii) Shri K.K. Venugopal and (iii) Shri Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate are forthwith expelled from the Primary Membership of the SCBA.
4. All the active members of SCBA, without any classification, will be eligible to vote in the annual elections, subject to their clearing the annual subscription/dues and filling of the declaration form;
Mr. P.H. Parekh, President of SCBA has publicly announced his resignation from his post with immediate effect. His resignation is forthwith accepted by the General Body.
The resolution was signed by about 500 members who were present although 1500 members were present and since others had left therefore their signatures could not be taken. The General Body Meeting was videographed.
Mr. Parekh has tendered his resignation which was accepted by the members of the General Body who were present.
In respect of todays EC Meeting all other members of the Executive Committee were informed of the meeting prefixed well in advance, but they chose not to come. The members of the Executive Committee were requested to attend this meeting for the resolutions which had been adopted are to be ratified by the Executive Committee. This Executive Committee ratifies the above resolutions.
The SCBA Office has received the letter dated 18.1.2012 by Mr. Pravin H. Parekh who has already resigned and he has no authority to sign as President. In this letter, it is mentioned that Mr. Parekh has submitted his resignation on 17.1.2012 which is totally false as per resolution passed by the General Body Meeting as his resignation which was already accepted by the General Body on 16.1.2012. The Executive Committee cannot sit over the decision taken by the General Body. The resolution dated 17.1.2012 is full of false facts and therefore, it is totally contrary to the resolution of the General Body Meeting, therefore the resolution is wholly illegal and cannot be taken into account.
Mr. Parekh resignation has been accepted and now he cannot function as president SCBA and any correspondence made by Mr. Parekh as President, SCBA will not be taken into account. The members of the Executive Committee cannot override the General Body Resolution by simply making signature after 16.1.2012 when his resignation has already been accepted. But he himself now says that he wants to withdraw the same, he cannot withdraw. The news that Mr. Parekh has resigned has been displayed on electronic media i.e. legallyindia.com
etc..
Today afternoon one complaint against Mr. Rakesh K.Khanna (Sr.) Vice President was received, stating that he had voted in the Delhi High Court Bar Association Election on 16.12.2011, giving declaration and thereby violating One Bar One Vote resolution which was binding on each and every member of the Supreme Court Bar Association and as per the judgement of the Supreme Court of India. The complaint received may be verified and copy of the same may be sent to Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna (Sr.) Vice President for his comments and to find out the veracity of the complaint.
The Resolution dated 16.1.2012 passed by the General Body is unanimously ratified by the Members of Executive Committee present.
The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.
Pramod Swarup (Sr.) Gaurav Bhatia, K.C. Kaushik
Sr. Executive Member Asst Secretary/ Hony. Secretary
Chairperson Convener
Ms.Kumud L. Das Umesh Babu Chaurasia Anurag Pandey
Member Executive Member Executive Member Executive
Meera Bhatia Onkar Prasad
Member Executive Member Executive
Shrabani Chakrabarty
Member Executive