The Supreme Court on Monday permitted the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) to proceed with its November 2 general body meeting on election reforms but directed that the voting outcome be kept in a sealed envelope and not declared publicly.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana issued the directions after Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta raised concerns over two proposed resolutions relating to proximity card entry into the Supreme Court premises and voting rights for veteran members of the Bar.

Clarifying the objective behind the proposed reforms, CJI Kant said the intention was not to take away anyone's rights but to strengthen the position of lawyers who regularly practise before the Supreme Court.

“The idea is not to take away rights. Rather, the idea is to strengthen the hands of the Bar. Those who are genuinely regular visitors to the Supreme Court, having an interest in the Bar, the institution and the system, we want to strengthen their hands. All those outsiders who have nothing to do with the profession should be isolated and excluded,” the CJI observed.

The directions came ahead of the November 5 hearing in Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, in which the Court is examining reforms to the SCBA's election process.

In an order dated May 29, the Supreme Court revised the eligibility criteria for contesting and voting in SCBA elections. The changes followed recommendations from a committee headed by former Supreme Court Justice L Nageswara Rao, along with suggestions from the Association and other members of the Bar.

Under the revised framework, proximity card entries, which record advocates' entry into the Supreme Court premises, can be used as corroborative evidence of eligibility but cannot serve as the sole criterion. The Court also extended voting eligibility to veteran members who have held SCBA membership for more than 25 years, subject to the conditions specified in its order.

During Monday's hearing, Gupta informed the Bench that the SCBA had convened a special general body meeting on November 2 to consider two resolutions concerning the May 29 order.

“We are not opposing any resolution. But the matter is due to be heard on November 5, and we were not consulted,” Gupta submitted.

SCBA President and Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai responded that the Association wanted to consult its members before presenting its views to the Court. He also questioned why Gupta had approached the Court instead of discussing the concerns with him directly.

Gupta subsequently objected to holding the meeting before the Court considered the matter, arguing that passing the resolutions could amount to overstepping the Court's directions.

“To have a general body meeting in the teeth of the Court’s order appears to be overreaching the Court,” he said.

CJI Kant, however, clarified that the committee examining the reforms was acting under the Court's directions and that its work was being undertaken under judicial supervision.

“The entire team are our experts. Whatever they propose, whatever they do, it is only at the instance of the Court,” the CJI said.

Rai reiterated that the SCBA wanted to seek the views of its members rather than rely solely on the executive committee's position. Gupta, however, pointed out that the resolutions could become binding immediately upon being passed.

The Bench subsequently allowed the meeting to go ahead but directed the Association not to announce its outcome. Instead, the results must be placed before the Court in a sealed envelope.

“Now that you have called the meeting, you may go ahead, but do not declare the outcome. Keep it in a sealed envelope and produce it before the Court,” CJI Kant directed.

Rai assured the Bench that the results would not be declared. The Court also asked the lawyers to remain present on November 5 and continue assisting it in the proceedings.