Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) president A.S. Chandhiok on Tuesday submitted before the High Court that the amendments to the constitution and election by-laws of the lawyers’ body had been carried out as per the parameters and principle set by the Supreme Court for such bodies.
Arguing before a Division Bench of Justice B.D. Ahmed and Justice Vibhu Bakhru hearing appeals against a Single Bench order dismissing a plea to stay implementation of the amendments, Mr. Chandhiok said that the Supreme Court had accepted the principle of ‘one bar one vote’ in respect of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
He submitted that his paramount interest was to evolve the High Court Bar Association as a court-annexed body, where only those lawyers would vote and stand in the election who are practising there.
He further submitted that there was no need to take these amendments to the general body of the Association for approval when the apex court had set the parameters of the structure of bar associations by admitting the principle of ‘one bar one vote.’
He stated that the matter had been resolved twice, yet the appellants had been agitating against it again and again.
Earlier, counsel for the district bar associations challenging the Single Bench order through the appeals urged the DHCBA to set an example of upholding the rule of law by following its rules and by-laws.
If the election to the High Court Bar, scheduled on December 13, was held under the new “illegal rules”, it would result in debarment of thousands of district courts’ lawyers from voting and standing in it.
The new rules were not circulated or published before September 16 when they were notified, therefore, the question of these rules coming into effect from October, 2012, as per the notification, did not arise, counsel for the appellants submitted.
The electoral roll was not yet ready and being modified on day-to-day basis. The names of Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Arun Jaitley had been deleted from the voters’ list after their illegal inclusion in it was mentioned before the Court by the appellants on Monday.
The argument will continue on Wednesday.