SCBA elections : Supreme Court rules in favour of one bar one vote

In a matter relating to voting rights of Supreme Court Bar Association, the Supreme Court had ruled in favour of the rule ''one bar one vote''.

Accordingly, members wanting to vote in SCBA elections shall have to give an undertaking that they will not vote in any other bar association in India.

A bench of Justice J M Panchal and Justice H L Gokhale has divided bar members in three categories namely 1. Members of SCBA pracrticing in Supreme Court 2. Members of SCBA but not practicing in Supreme Court and 3. Members practicing in the Supreme Court but not having regular membership of SCBA also known as temporary members.

The apex court also passed the order appointing a three member committee to execute the court's order. The committee shall comprise of senior advocates K K Venugopal, P P Rao and Ranjit Kumar.

Now the committee shall see which member of the bar falls in which category and according to the order only regular members who are practicing in Supreme Court shall have the voting rights. Members from rest of the two categories shall not have the powet to vote although they will be able to use other facilities like library etc.

The issue of one bar one vote arose when in 2003, the SCBA passed a resolution that anyone wanting to vote in SCBA elections shall not vote in any other bar association elections. This was challenged by one BD Kaushik in Tis Hazari court and the Tis Hazari court had issued an injunction staying the resolution passed by Supreme Court Bar Association.

The order of civil judge dated 5th April 2003 was challenged in SLP filed in Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stayed the injunction order and the matter was pending since then.

TRAI report on 2G scam surprises Supreme Court

Supreme Court expresses surprise over TRAI report which purportedly assessed zero loss in the 2G spectrum allocation.

During the hearing Justice Singhvi observed ''...CBI has indicated that the loss is less than what the CAG has calculated. Even that loss has been contested. We are really surprised over this communication (What TRAI wrote to CBI) sent by a regulatory body appointed by the act of Parliament. The communication is seriously debatable! Everything shud be left to the court to decide...''

CBI's counsel on the other hand said ''...We have not accepted. It is true that everybody is taking advantage of it...''

Justice Singhvi further observed ''...People should not take it lightly! Let the system work on its own! We reserve our comments because it may prejudice the parties...''

During the hearing CBI counsel KK Venugopal continued to maintain that the investigation in the case is over and now there is no need to order a fresh probe against Chidambaram

KKV further argued that according to CrPC, the lower court is competent to summon Chidambaram if its of such opinion that his role should be looked into.

The hearing has some lighter moments! CBI's counsel KK Venugopal said that Subramanium Swamy has been filing many cases in the public interest. Swamy is more than a lawyer.

Subramanium Swamy was quick to react saying KK Venugopal always appear for the accused sayinf Venugopal even appeared for Jayalalitha.

There can be more trouble for Chidambaram as Swamy has also submitted before the Supreme Court a letter by Ministry of Finance to PM which said A Raja and P Chidambaram together decided 2G prices.