With the courts closed as much of Delhi voted today, the Delhi high court is reconsidering former Delhi Bar Association (DBA) president Rajiv Khosla’s plea against election rule amendments that disqualify him from contesting or voting in the 13 December Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) polls, according to the PTI.
The amended election rules of the DHCBA, notified in September 2013, include the “One Bar One Vote” rule that was also an issue during the controversial Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections late last year.
Another bone of contention was the embargo against contesting in DHCBA elections for candidates who have been office bearers in any other bar association for three terms immediately prior to the election. Furthermore, a new rule specified that candidates contesting for DHCBA’s presidency must have already been a DHCBA member for at least 25 years.
Khosla argued before the Delhi HC that the amendments were brought about “secretly” by the DHCBA’s executive committee (EC), without a general body meeting (GBM), which is mandatory to affect amendments to the DHCBA’s constitution.
He claimed that the DHCBA circulated the amendments among DHCBA members for the first time only on 16 September 2013. He also challenged the retrospectivity of the amendments that caught him.
Khosla added that “on account of his being active against the office bearers of [the DHCBA], the present president of [the DHCBA], developed a grudge against [Khosla] and is hell bent not to allow the plaintiff to contest the election to the Hony. posts in [the DHCBA]”, according to the text of a 13 November order.
Delhi HC justice Vipin Sanghi had on 13 November refused to grant an ad interim injunction to Khosla on the ground that he had filed his petition “after the election process has been set into motion”. Sanghi added that “the amended rules were in existence - as they were made a part of the judicial record since January 2013 and, in any event, one of the prominent member and leader of the bar, Mr. Rajiv Khosla became aware of them on 30.08.2013”.
However, Khosla preferred a letters patent appeal against Sanghi’s order and a division bench of justices BD Ahmed and Vibhu Bakhru yesterday asked Sanghi to freshly consider his plea.
A Delhi high court practicing advocate told Legally India that while DHCBA members are “not happy” about the current EC having changed the elections rules without calling a GBM, many members also did not want Khosla in power at the DHCBA. “Not many people are standing behind Khosla,” he said but claimed that Khosla still “has enough support amidst the core group to win. Last time he gave Chandhiok a run for his money”.
Khosla lost the 16 December 2011 DHCBA elections to senior advocate AS Chandhiok by a marginal 160 votes, Delhi HC advocate Dushyant K Mahant blogged. Chandhiok, who has been DHCBA president for the last two terms consecutively, cannot contest this time according to election rules 19(a) and (b).
Senior advocates Rakesh Tiku, PV Kapur and Sanjay Jain and advocate DK Sharma are contesting for the post of DHCBA president on 13 December. [Complete list, via the Facebook page of the DHCBA]
Comments
NO. He instead prefers to send bulk unsolicited SMS's to everyone crying FOUL! ..which mind you, are in contravention of extant SMS guidelines.
Absolutely appalling to see this happening in the Delhi Bar.
The changes in the rules or any other measures have been taken for the preservation and betterment of the Bar and what it stands for. It would be foolish (and immature) to think that the changes were brought about to exclude one man. The amended rules emanate from a Supreme Court decision; were widely discussed at the Bar and then further approved in a Delhi High Court decision. In any event, assuming there was no GBM. The rules have been ratified by over 500 members whose name appear in the nomination papers for this election.
Don’t make this into a Chandok v Khosla stand off. But just so know: in the past 15 years of my practice at the DHC, I have seen the REAL changes that Mr. Chandok has brought about. The parking, the canteen, new chamber blocks, the decision against Delhi Court Fees. Ask any Delhi High Court lawyer (even those who sit around and do nothing)– and he/she will acknowledge the immense contribution that one man has made to the Bar. On the other hand, Mr. Khosla and his goons tried to attack Mr. Chandok after the hearing on November 29, 2013. Is that the sort of man you want leading the Bar? I think not!
PS – I do not hold a brief for Mr Chandok or anyone else. I hold one for real, tangible and actual change.