The Supreme Court today declined to consider an application filed by Senior Advocate Dr. Adish C. Aggarwala, former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), challenging a public statement issued by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, the current SCBA President, concerning the RG Kar Medical College rape and murder case.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed Aggarwala’s application as withdrawn. The bench commented that SCBA Presidents are viewed as leaders of the Bar by the Court and stressed the need to avoid groupism or internal conflicts among SCBA members.
Background and Proceedings
The application was brought before the Court during proceedings related to electoral reforms in the SCBA, in which the Court had previously mandated a one-third reservation for women in SCBA leadership roles. The Court was informed that suggestions from SCBA members regarding this reform had been submitted, and it subsequently ordered that these suggestions be compiled and published on the Supreme Court website.
Following this, Aggarwala’s application was considered. He argued that Sibal, representing the State of West Bengal in the RG Kar case, had issued a statement on behalf of the SCBA without consulting other Executive Committee members. Justice Kant, however, dismissed these concerns as unnecessary, remarking in a light-hearted manner that Sibal’s only fault was failing to invite Aggarwala for a cup of coffee. Sibal responded, stating he would happily offer even more.
Aggarwala persisted, urging that Sibal commit to consulting the SCBA before making such statements. Justice Kant reiterated that SCBA Presidents, both past and present, are respected as leaders of the Bar and discouraged any internal discord. He stated:
“For us, Mr. Kapil Sibal, you, Mr. Parekh, all of you are leaders of the Bar… you are the pillars and strength of the Bar… therefore, we look towards you people when we are talking of reforms.”
Aggarwala then asked that Sibal be directed to avoid making unilateral statements, arguing that this would protect SCBA’s democratic principles. Justice Kant assured him that Sibal, as a seasoned advocate and parliamentarian, understood his duties towards the welfare of the Bar.
Substance of Aggarwala’s Application
Aggarwala challenged a resolution issued by Sibal on August 21, 2024, in which Sibal, as SCBA President, described the RG Kar Medical College incident as “symptomatic of malaise.” The resolution stated:
“The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) deeply appreciates the concern expressed by the Bench headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India regarding the malaise prevailing in the country and the wanton violence against women in hospitals, including women interns. The SCBA endorses the historic steps taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to establish protocols to prevent the recurrence of such barbaric incidents… SCBA expresses its solidarity with the Court and hopes such incidents are not repeated.”
Aggarwala contended that Sibal issued this statement on SCBA letterhead without convening a meeting, violating SCBA rules. He cited an objection letter signed by 11 of the 21 Executive Committee members on August 22, 2024, questioning the propriety of the statement.
Aggarwala alleged that Sibal’s actions aimed to sway the Court and the investigation in favor of West Bengal and argued that the resolution compromised SCBA’s credibility. He noted:
“Mr. Kapil Sibal, as SCBA President and representative of the West Bengal government, has undermined the gravity of the incident, showcasing a conflict of interest by issuing this resolution on a highly sensitive matter.”
On August 23, 2024, Aggarwala urged Sibal to retract the resolution, warning that failure to do so would lead to a no-confidence motion. When Sibal did not respond, Aggarwala pursued the no-confidence motion, citing the necessity to ensure clarity on eligible signatories per the Court’s order of March 4, 2024.
Clarification on Voting Eligibility
Aggarwala sought clarification on the Court’s order dated March 4, 2024, which pertains to SCBA electoral participation. The order stipulated:
“We are prima facie satisfied that all those members eligible to contest and vote in elections under Rule 18 of the SCBA Rules shall be eligible to be invited and participate in the Special General Meeting under Rule 22 of these Rules.”
This clarification was requested to confirm eligible participants in the upcoming Special General Meeting against the SCBA President.
Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association vs. B.D. Kaushik, Diary No. 13992-2023
Lawcutor 