The interpretation of rules governing organizational elections should align with the original intent and may require periodic review and potential amendments.

G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

IA.No.18524/2011

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

CS(OS) 2883/2011 & IA.No.18525/2011 (u/O.39 Rs-1 & 2 CPC)

3. Issue summons in the suit and notice in the application. Learned counsel for the defendants accept summons in the suit and notice in the application.

4. A member of the Executive Committee of Delhi High Court Bar Association (hereinafter referred as “DHCBA”) has knocked the doors of this court for justice. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the Executive Committee of DHCBA had passed a resolution dated 08.01.2010 and the minutes of the resolution were ratified by the Executive Committee of DHCBA in its meeting held on 12.04.2010. The resolution passed on 17.05.2010 was ratified in the meeting held on 13.09.2010. The defendants in its meeting held on 21.09.2011 by way of agenda at item no.2 comprehensively discussed and passed amendments in the guidelines and modalities for holding elections and amongst many other decisions the minutes of the meeting dated 08.01.2010 was decided to be given prospective effect. The minutes of this meeting were ratified in the meeting of the Executive Committee on 18.11.2011.

5. The first grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendants have been acting against their own decisions and they have not been conducting their affairs in accordance with the Rules by not following their own decisions. It is submitted that Executive Committee has decided not to give effect to its own resolution with respect to fixing the minimum number of years as eligibility for members seeking election and also the decision taken for payment of security deposit of the contesting members.

6. Aggrieved by the opinion/ resolution dated 09.11.2011 of the Executive Committee of DHCBA, present suit has been filed. Operative portion of the opinion/ resolution dated 09.11.2011 reads as under:

“The Executive Committee, therefore by consensus of majority resolved/ opined that no office bearer or member executive of the present Executive Committee was eligible to offer/ repeat his/her candidature for the same post as office bearer or category of member executive, in view of the Bar created by rule 19(b)”

7. Mr. Mittal, counsel for the plaintiff submits that the opinion / resolution dated 09.11.2011 of the Committee is patently incorrect since the term of office as per Rule 19(a) is one year and unless two “elected consecutive terms” are held by a person, such person cannot be barred to hold office or contest for the post of member executive in the next elections. According to Mr. Mittal, the correct interpretation of Rule 19(a) and 19 (b) would mean that to incur the disability to contest two elected terms would be a pre-requisite. It is further submitted that the opinion/ resolution of the Executive Committee would have adverse effect on the rights of the plaintiff, as the defendant no.16, the Chief Election Officer, would be forced to follow the dictates in the form of opinion/ resolution of the Executive Committee. Counsel for the plaintiff has also drawn attention of the court to the Minutes of the Executive Committee held on 08.01.2010. In support of his submission that the understanding of the Executive Committee of Rule 19(a) and 19 (b) was that a member, who has held a particular office in the association for a total number of four terms, should not be eligible to contest for the said post, whereas the interpretation sought to be given now is not the number of terms, but the number of years. Operative portion of the resolution reads as under:

“The members also discussed the election rules. It was decided that a person desiring to contest for the post of President, Vice-President & Hony. Secretary should respectively be a member of Delhi High Court Bar Association for at least 25, 20, 15 years respectively. The members also decided that any member who has held a particular office in the association for total number of 4 (four) terms shoul