Read Time: 10 minutes

The Supreme Court Bar Association’s president Vikas Singh has addressed letter to CJI NV Ramana regarding non-consideration of several pending issues of the bar.

He has said that the inaction of bench in not meeting SCBA’s demands gives an impression that their voice is not being heard because they don’t go on a strike.
The letter begins with the words, “I am writing this letter with deep sense of anguish.”

System of Virtual Hearings ‘militates’ against open hearings: 

The letter criticises that in Virtual Hearings, the present system is not acceptable at all. It states that the present system does not permit  the lawyers to enter any proceeding and mention a matter or to even ask for a suitable date because the control is with the court master and the decision to unmute the lawyers lies with them.

The letter notes that the system ‘militates’ against the concept of open hearings. The letter further mentions that lawyers are not permitted to mute or unmute themselves on their own  and none of the High Courts in the country exercises this control. According to the letter, the SCBA was initially told that the software being used does not permit this feature, however having gone through several updates it is not possible that such a feature cannot be incorporated.

Issues with listing & urgent mentioning:

The letter states that the SCBA has also been representing from the beginning that a large number of matters are not being listed instate of mentioning them for some unknown reasons and submits that their demand is merely that all matter filed should be listed strictly on basis of date of filing and the bar should always have the right to make urgent mentioning.

Non-consideration of list of names of advocates by collegium:

The letter further brings to the notice the issue of elevation of members of SCBA to various High Courts. According to the letter the same was taken up at the CJI’s insistence and a credible search committee was constituted to identify names for such elevation. The letter further mentions that the committee identified 48 names and recommended the same, the letter further claims that Singh met the CJI personally and handed the said names. 
The letter states that the entire exercise will become futile if the Collegium does not consider these names. The letter further states that the SCBA is not claiming that these names be given priority but is only seeking for consideration. The letter states that this exercise was undertaken was to bring more transparency to appointment in Higher Judiciary which is repeated being alleged to be under a cloak of secrecy. The letter also claims that none of the names suggested by the search committee have be considered by any High Court Collegium.

Allotment of Chambers: 

The letter further addresses the issues of allotment of chambers by the earlier Executive committee alone with the Judges Committee so as to make 3 chambers out of 2 for the purpose of single allotment. The letter claims that despite being told that the same is ready the list of allotment has not been handed over to SCBA till date. The letter states that SCBA has been corresponding with the registry to find out the progress of the redesign work however they were informed that no work has started for re-design. The letter states that a building which is ready in every aspect is laying vacant and unused dude to delay in allotment of chambers.

Allocation of space:

According to the letter SCBA has been asking for extra space for the Association to prove for a more proximate library, a lunch room and rooms for the President & Secretary in the annexe building in from of Court.11. However till date no action has been taken despite verbal assurance from the former CJI Dipak Misra. The letter states that the present lunch room is a dingy small room where many Senior Advocates and Advocates practicing in the court have lunch. The letter claims that despite additional space being allotted to Supreme Court in Pragati Vihar which resulted in large number of offices being moved there.

Other prominent issues highlighted:

The letter claims that SCBA was debarred from using the Auditorium during the tenure of Rakesh Khanna (former President) and this debarment was not in the public domain till they sought to use to auditorium for farewell of Justice Indu Malhotra.

The letter further states that as per the Supreme Court Guidelines to Regulate Conferment of Designation of Senior Advocates, 2018 the Committee is obliged to meet at least twice in a calendar year however no steps have been taken in the last 2.5 years to call for application from advocates for senior designations. The letter further seeks for an urgent audience be granted to the Executive Committee of SCBA to discuss the issues and necessary action be taken at the earliest.