The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to ensure the effectiveness of the 'one bar one vote' rule by addressing the lack of uniformity in election tenures and introducing a mechanism to preserve election records.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

C.M. APPL.36262/2016 IN W.P.(C) 8106/2010

1. This order will dispose of application by the petitioner and some others, which seek a clarification as to certain aspects arising from the judgment of this Division Bench, dated 31st May 2016 (hereafter “the main judgment”).

2. The judgment dealt with two issues, viz. firstly the applicability of the “one bar one vote” rule to various Bar Associations in Delhi and secondly, the “one chamber in the city” rule to advocates and whether a legal practitioner can lay claim to more than one chamber in the several court complexes in the city, given that they are built at public expense. The applications before this court (as by way of modification/clarification) are in respect of the first issue; the applications regarding the second issue would be heard separately and orders made later.

3. The applicants urge that while establishing the “one bar one vote” principle, the court, in the main judgment had proceeded on the assumption that there exists uniformity in respect of election tenures in the several Bar Associations across the city, which is incorrect. It is also emphasized that frequently, elections to Bar Associations are not conducted in a timely manner, often leading to extended tenures of over one year. Given these factors, the main judgment’s requirement for advocate-voters to furnish an undertaking that each of them did not vote or contest elections in the previous year, would be ineffectual and meaningless. It is further highlighted that there is no method, whereby all Bar Associations compulsorily maintain election records, especially of the voter’s declarations in the past, or whether some or all of them voted in any particular bar election. This, it is urged, renders verification of the declarations required by the main judgment a difficult task. The applicants also argue that these require appropriate modification of the judgment, to ensure that declaration by electors is in respect of the previous or preceding election in the Bar Associations other than in which they or she/he chose to vote in a given year. Furthermore, the court, it is argued, should evolve a mechanism whereby individual declarations are maintained by every Bar Association for at least two years, or till the elections to the next term are conducted and all disputes are adjudicated.

4. Some counsels who addressed in support of the applications also argued that with the coming into force of statutory rules framed by the Delhi Bar Council, in compliance with the Supreme Court judgment, every practicing advocate has been made to furnish a written declaration stating the number of years she or he has been in practice, the court where she or he ordinarily practices, and other relevant details. These would facilitate the task of verification during elections.

5. The Bar Associations - represented by their counsels, opposed the modification. The arguments of these counsels were that the main judgment is pending appeal by special leave; since the Supreme Court is seized of the matter, this court should desist from clarifying or modifying the judgment. It is submitted in this context that the implications of the main judgment were known, or could have been reasonably be known to the applicants and if their apprehensions were bona fide, they would have approached this court earlier. It is stressed that since elections to the Delhi High Court Bar Association have been announced and are around the corner, the applicants have, in a motivated manner, so to speak, sought refuge under the so called request for modification which should be rejected.

6. As to the merits of the applications, it is argued that this court has, in effect intruded into the autonomy of the Bar Associations and should refrain from doing so further. Counsel after counsel have reiterated that deciding on the tenure of the Bar Associations and the repercussions if elections are not held each year are matters which cannot fall