S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

“The advocate has a duty to the court which is paramount. It is a mistake to suppose that he is the mouthpiece of his client to say what he wants: or his tool to do what he directs. He is none of these things. He owes allegiance to a higher cause. It is the cause of truth and justice. He must not consciously mis-state [sic] the facts. He must not knowingly conceal the truth...He must produce all the relevant authorities, even those that are against him. He must see that his client discloses, if ordered, the relevant documents, even those that are fatal to his case. He must disregard the most specific instructions of his client, if they conflict with his duty to the court. The code which requires a barrister to do all this is not a code of law. It is a code of honour. If he breaks it, he is offending against the rules of the profession and is subject to its discipline.”

(Lord Denning) [Rondel v Worsley 1966 (3) WLR 950]

1. It is the duty owed by the Bar to the Courts, which is in issue in this common judgment which disposes of four writ petitions that call for a decision of public importance involving the functioning of courts and their orderly conduct. Briefly, all the petitions have a common theme, i.e. that the principle of one Advocate one vote in one Bar, should be introduced for all Bar Associations, irrespective of the multitude of memberships of an advocate in Delhi; secondly the petitioners seek directions for the introduction of the concept of one person one chamber, one court complex only, in the city of Delhi.

2. In WP (C)8106/2010 (described by the Petitioner’s name, i.e. as “Dash”) the claim is that rules governing allotment of Chambers in various court complexes should be amended to restrict eligibility to one chamber in the entire territory of Delhi, for advocates, regardless of the number of bar associations they are members of (i.e. hereafter called “one advocate, one chamber” principle); the second claim is that each advocate should be allowed only one voting right in regard to a bar association of which he is member, regardless of the number of such associations he chooses to belong to (hereafter referred to as the “one advocate, one vote” principle) and that directions should be issued to mandate that within the city of Delhi, all Bar Associations should hold elections not later than on expiration of two years” term. In WP 6851/2012 (hereafter “Naresh Kumar”) too the claim is for a direction to introduce the “one advocate one vote” concept in the bar associations so as to ensure that in any given year, an advocate can vote only once in one bar association, regardless of her or his multiple bar association memberships. In WP(C)7549/2012 (hereafter “Satyanand”) the claim is for directions to inter alia, ensure that only genuine practitioners are members of the bar associations attached to various courts in the city of Delhi, to safeguard that chambers are allotted to genuine practicing advocates and that the transfer of allotted chambers, is prohibited and discontinued. In WP 2689/2014 (hereafter “Anil Sehgal”) the claim is that the Bar Council of Delhi should ensure the introduction of the principle of" One Bar, One Vote" throughout all the Bar Associations in Delhi.

3. It is argued by the Petitioners that Section 6(1)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) provides that the State Bar Councils are to safeguard the rights, privileges and interest of advocates on its rolls. Section 6(1)(i), enables the State Bar Councils to perform all other necessary functions for discharging functions provided therein. The petitioners urge that there is an immense need to frame definite rules, policies and guidelines involving the issues of allotment of chambers, tenure of Bar Associations, and the procedure for conducting free and fair elections of the Bar Associations on the principle of “One Bar One Vote”. The Petitioners submit that the issue “One Bar One Vote” is squarely covered b