SCBA seeks relocation of Judicial Museum to free up space for Bar Chambers

The SCBA has proposed that the vacated museum space, formerly the Judges’ Library, be repurposed into soundproof chambers and meeting cubicles for lawyers. Read further on Dynamite News:

New Delhi: Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) President Vikas Singh has written to Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, urging the relocation of the National Judicial Museum and Archive from the current high-security zone within the Supreme Court campus to the Additional Building Area.

The SCBA has proposed that the vacated museum space, formerly the Judges' Library, be repurposed into soundproof chambers and meeting cubicles for lawyers.

Singh pointed out that the current location restricts public access and was established without consulting the Bar.

He also urged the downgrading of the Additional Building's security status to allow better access for lawyers and their clients. The letter criticises the justification based on security tunnels, suggesting that access controls at tunnel entry points would suffice.

The SCBA had earlier objected to the museum’s location and boycotted its inauguration in November 2024, demanding that the space be allocated for Bar use.

SCBA Elections: Votes were recounted

The Supreme Court heard a petition challenging the recently concluded Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections, which led to serious deliberations over alleged electoral irregularities and demands for greater transparency. The Court directed a fresh recount of the votes.

A special bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan presided over the proceedings on Monday.

The petitioners raised several concerns, including inconsistencies in vote counts, duplicate voting incidents, and a call for a re-election to restore trust in the process.

Senior Advocates Dr. Adish Aggarwala and Pradeep Rai presented their submissions, alongside the SCBA Election Committee's response through Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria.

At the outset, Justice Kant urged decorum and professionalism, stating, “We can sit till midnight if needed, but please do not get agitated. Things are being recorded and can go viral.”

Dr. Aggarwala requested that certain matters be discussed in chambers, but the Bench chose to maintain transparency by conducting proceedings in open court.

He alleged that candidate Vikas Singh had canvassed for votes after the conclusion of the election debate. However, the Court noted that such issues should have been raised earlier.

Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai, a presidential candidate, informed the Bench that a recount showed 2,576 votes, significantly fewer than the 2,651 votes officially declared on May 20.

He cited discrepancies, including a case where a voter named Chandan Kumar reportedly found his vote already cast but was still allowed to vote again after intervention.

Rai stressed that such irregularities raised doubts over the legitimacy of the results, though he did not question the integrity of the Election Committee members.

In response, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for the Election Committee, refuted allegations of bias and said such claims had caused pain to the committee.

He clarified that a “bona fide calculation error” had occurred but insisted it did not affect the overall outcome. The Committee had received 19 representations, including one against Dr. Aggarwala alleging gift distribution to sway voters.

Justice Kant, in a light moment, advised Hansaria not to take harsh remarks personally. However, he sternly warned that threats or coercion would discourage capable individuals from participating in the electoral process.

The Bench praised the Committee’s work and reiterated its support, saying their conduct was akin to a fair tribunal.

The Court directed a fresh recount of votes for the nine Executive Member posts in addition to the recount for the President’s post.

It emphasised that young lawyers’ morale should not be undermined due to unresolved doubts. Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani informed the Bench that 14 complaints had been received regarding the Executive Member elections.