Central Delhi Court Bar Association Shall Be Recognized Court Annexed Bar Association For Rouse Avenue District Court Complex: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court directed that the Central Delhi Court Bar Association shall be the recognized Court annexed Bar Association for the Rouse Avenue District Court Complex.

The Court was dealing with a batch of writ petitions filed by Rouse Avenue Bar Association against the Bar Council of Delhi.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Ravinder Dudeja held, “… the Central Delhi Court Bar Association shall be the recognized Court annexed Bar Association for the Rouse Avenue District Court Complex … the Membership of the Central Delhi Court Bar Association as on date shall be comprising of the six surviving desirous persons who had signed the Memorandum of Association and Mr. Rajesh Mishra, Advocate who was later made a Member of the said Association in place of Late Mr. Jagdev.”

The Bench constituted an Adhoc Committee for the management of the Central Delhi Court Bar Association comprising of (a) Vice President of the Delhi High Court Bar Association (b) Senior Vice President of the Delhi Bar Association (c) Vice President of the New Delhi Bar Association (d) Senior Vice President of the Shahdara Bar Association (e) Vice President of the Rohini Bar Association (f) Vice President of the Dwarka Court Bar Association and (g) Vice President of the Saket Bar Association.

Advocate Munawwar Naseem appeared for the petitioner while Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the question that arose for consideration was as to whether the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1) (c) of the Constitution to form an Association also includes the right to be recognised by a State Bar Council or by the Court for the purposes of availing benefits that flow from such recognition, either as a Court annexed Bar Association or as a recognised Bar Association under the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 2001. Such question arose in the context of the Rouse Avenue District Court Complex which was a newly set up Court complex, inaugurated in 2019.

Virtually a race had started by some Advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Delhi to set up Bar Associations comprising of advocates enrolled in Delhi as the Court annexed Advocates Association for the Rouse Avenue District Court Complex. Bar Associations of Advocates practising in court complexes help in safeguarding rights, privileges and interest of its members. State Bar Councils under Section 6 of the Advocates Act, 1961 have been mandated to inter alia safeguard the rights, privileges and interest of Advocates on its rolls and also to promote the growth of Bar Associations for the purposes of effective implementation of the welfare schemes constituted by the Bar Council of India under Section 7 of the Advocates Act.

The High Court in the above context of the case observed, “In case the Senior Vice President/Vice President, as the case may be, of any of the aforesaid Bar Associations is either not available or declines, for any reason, to become a Member of the Adhoc Committee, then the Vice President/Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary, as the case may, be of the said Association shall be a Member in place of the said Senior Vice President/Vice President.”

The Court further said that the senior most member of the Adhoc Committee in term of his/her date of enrolment as per Section 17 of the Advocates Act shall be the Chairperson of the Adhoc Committee.

“In the first meeting of the Adhoc Committee, the Committee, from amongst its members, shall nominate two authorized signatories to the bank account of the Central Delhi Court Bar Association whose names shall be then substituted in the existing bank account. … The Adhoc committee shall open the membership of the Association to those Advocates who fulfil the eligibility conditions for membership”, it added.

The Court also clarified that none of the seven present members (desirous persons) shall claim seniority based on their membership and their seniority shall also be considered in accordance with the date of enrolment as per Section 17 of the Advocates Act.

“The Adhoc committee shall refund all the money received from the Advocates who had earlier applied for becoming a member of the Central Delhi Court Bar Association, after due verification. … An Advocate desirous of becoming a member shall have to submit a fresh application form and the earlier form submitted and payments made shall not be considered valid”, it ordered.

The Court noted that only the admission fee of Rs 1000/- shall be payable for becoming a member and there shall be no monthly subscription till the elections are held and thereafter, the elected body shall determine and stipulate a reasonable amount per month as subscription to be paid for the said Association, which shall be payable by the members.

“Col. Arun Sharma (Retd.), Secretary Bar Council of Delhi shall be the Secretary of the Adhoc Committee. … The first meeting of the Adhoc Committee shall be held on Friday the 26th April, 2024 at 4.30 pm in the Office of the Bar Council of Delhi at 1-F, Lawyers Chambers, High Court of Delhi, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi”, it directed.

The Court said that aince a new Bar Association is being formed, any condition mandating a minimum qualifying membership period for contesting the election for any post or casting a note shall not be applicable for the purposes of the first election to be held on October 19, 2024.

“It is clarified that the challenge raised by Mr. Lalit Sharma to the Bar Association (Constitution, Recognition & Conduct of Election) Rules, 2019, which is stated to be subject matter of the review application filed by him before the full bench in WP (C) 10363/2021, is left open”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petitions.

Cause Title- Rouse Avenue Bar Association v. The Bar Council of Delhi & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3059-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Munawwar Naseem, Siddharth, Indra Chand, Mukesh Kumar, Yajuvender Kumar, and Manoj Kumar.

Respondents: Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta, Advocates Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Rajesh Mishra, Ajayinder Sangwan, Naresh Gupta, O. P. Faizi, Pooja Bansal, Vijay Bishnoi, Surya Parkash Khatri, Pankaj Kumar, and Sarwan Kumar.

Click here to read/download the Judgment