.jpg)
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said that any grievance regarding the resolution should be addressed through the democratic process under the association’s rules. The court permitted the petitioner to approach the committee.
The bench observed that interfering with the democratic process of a bar association having different views and counter-views would set a dangerous precedent. It said that such dialectics are part of a democratic system and should always be encouraged.
The petition was filed by Ashish Gopal Garg, who objected to the July 16 resolution, arguing that an individual opinion could not be imposed on the entire bar association.
“We are not going to accept it if they are going to praise Wangchuk. The resolution gives an impression that it was the view of the entire association,” Garg said.
Responding to the submission, the bench said, “Do not use the word ‘we’ as you also do not represent the entire bar…this falls within the internal working of the association.”
The court noted that the petition included a list of 37 lawyers who shared the same view regarding the resolution. The bench suggested that the appropriate course would be to call a general body meeting.
“You should call a general body [meeting]. That is the appropriate recourse. As per democratic process, all of you can sit together and resolve the issue,” the bench said.
During the hearing, Garg read portions of the resolution, stating that “institutional conscience” had not responded with the “urgency and sensitivity” required by the situation. The resolution expressed concern over “systemic failures” affecting millions of young citizens and an “erosion of accountability” across public institutions.
Garg said that they did not subscribe to the ideology reflected in the resolution. He argued that the Executive Committee did not have the authority to pass such a resolution after becoming “functus officio” following the declaration of the next elections.
“They should not pass such a resolution. Personal ideology should not be made part of an SCBA resolution,” Garg said.
The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirmed that internal matters of associations should primarily be resolved through their own democratic mechanisms, allowing members to address disagreements within the framework of the association’s rules.
About The Author
Comment List