Supreme Court Bar Association writes to Chief Justice of India


The Supreme Court Bar Association wrote to Chief Justice of India NV Ramana expressing anguish at the failure to address several outstanding issues from the bar.

Senior Counsel Vikas Singh, Chairman of the SCBA in his letter to CJI and the 5 senior Supreme Court justices requested that an urgent hearing be granted to the SCBA Executive Committee to discuss the issues and that the necessary action be taken as soon as possible.

“We now have the feeling that the SCBA, having never resorted to a strike in its history, is not receiving the importance it deserves.” the letter indicates

According to the Association, the following issues are awaiting consideration by the Court:

Raising SCBA Membership: The letter indicated that the CJI had addressed the issue of elevation of SCBA members to various high courts and that the SCBA had formed a very credible search committee to identify names to be considered for elevation. The 48 names have been identified and given to CJI.

According to the SCBA, the colleges of high courts are in the process of recommending names for the elevation and all its exercise will be in vain if the respective colleges were to recommend names for the elevation without having in front of them the names of the members of the SCBA.

“The whole exercise was also aimed at bringing more transparency in the exercise of the appointment to the higher magistracy which is repeatedly accused of being under cover of secrecy. According to our information, none of the names suggested by the search committee has only been reviewed by any of the colleges of the High Court. ” the letter indicates.

Allocation of rooms:

Senior lawyer Vikas Singh, chairman of the SCBA, said in his letter that a decision was made by the previous executive committee with the judges’ committee to change the room partitions to create 3 out of 2 rooms for the purpose of single subdivision. However, despite the Association’s repeated request, the final room allocation list was not prepared within a limited time frame.

“We corresponded with the registry to find out the progress of the work compared to the decision of the last executive committee and we were told that no work had started to rethink the same thing. We were also trying to get the allocation list to see if we could ask the members to choose their partners from the list and do the allocation to the chamber as it is today without any changes, but this effort was also unable to bear fruit due to the delay in finalizing the list. »The letter reads

Additional space for the association:

The letter stated that the Association had requested additional space to provide a closer library, dining room, and rooms for the SCBA President and Secretary in the annex building across from Court No.11, which resulted in us being been verbally assured. by then CJIDipak Misra, however, so far no action has been taken in this regard.

“The current dining room is a dingy little room where many senior lawyers and practicing lawyers in this court have lunch and it is unfortunate that so much extra space has been made available to the Supreme Court in the Pragati Vihar area. , which resulted in the relocation of large numbers of offices from the current building, but no proportionate space was allocated to SCBA, the letter pointed out.

Auditorium and meeting rooms Functions / meetings of SCBA: Mr. Singh said that Since the start of his current term, he has requested the provision of the Auditorium and meeting rooms for SCBA functions / meetings, but this was refused without any justification.

Further, if it was pointed out that although the additional land had been made available due to the persistence of the SCBA which had filed a petition on this behalf for the removal of Appu Ghar and to give the additional land to the Court supreme, the SCBA was also not given any additional space in the existing building and “to add insult to injury, the ARA was prohibited from using the Auditorium..

According to Mr. Singh, while several letters were written on the issue of the ban on using the Auditorium, verbal assurances were given but no decision was taken on the same.

Virtual hearings:

The letter said that the SCBA has repeatedly stated that the current virtual hearing system is not at all acceptable to the Bar, especially the feature of lawyers not having the right to turn them on / off. same sound.

In addition, it has been stated that the software used by the Supreme Court has been upgraded several times and that with advancements in technology it is clearly impossible for the functionality to allow lawyers to shut down and restore themselves. The same cannot be incorporated into the virtual hearing of the Supreme Court when the the same is available in the virtual hearing of all high courts across the country.

Non-list of cases even mentioning:

The letter pointed out that a large number of cases are not listed despite the mention and for unknown reasons, many categories of cases are not listed for the preliminary hearing.

In this regard, SCBA’s request is that all filed cases be listed strictly on the basis of the filing date and that the bar always have the right to make urgent mention for the list of cases.

Principal Lawyers Nominations for Uncalled Principal Designation:

The letter indicated that despite the SCBA’s request, no action has been taken in the past 2.5 years to call for nominations from lawyers for a primary designation, even though the “Nomination Committee senior lawyer ”is required to meet at least twice during a calendar year. .

Construction of additional lawyers’ chambers: According to the letter, the SCBA has requested the acceleration of construction of additional law firms on 1.33 acres of land allocated to the Supreme Court of India behind a gas pump near the ITO. However, to date, no action has been taken in this regard and the said land is vacant.

Click here to read / download the letter


Comments are closed.