SC declines plea challenging SCBA resolution supporting Wangchuk hunger strike

The court said any grievance against the resolution can be best addressed through the democratic process under the association’s rules

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to entertain a petition challenging a Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Executive Committee resolution, expressing solidarity with activist Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike over the examination paper leaks. It disposed of the petition and observed that the resolution is part of their internal working.

Activist Sonam Wangchuk during his hunger strike. (HT PHOTO)

The court said any grievance against the resolution can be best addressed through the democratic process under the association’s rules. It permitted the petitioner to approach the committee.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana said it will be a dangerous precedent if the court interferes in the democratic process of a bar association having a view and a counter-view and having the dialectics, which democracy will always encourage.

The petitioner, Ashish Gopal Garg, objected to the July 16 resolution, saying an individual opinion cannot be thrust on the entire bar. “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.”

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.” It noted that the petition attached a list of 37 lawyers who shared the same view about the resolution. “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.”

Garg read out portions from the resolution, saying that “institutional conscience” has not responded with the “urgency and sensitivity” the moment demanded. The resolution expressed concern over the “systemic failures” affecting millions of young citizens and an “erosion of accountability” across public institutions.

Garg said they do not subscribe to this ideology. “The Executive Committee had no authority to pass such a resolution, since it became ‘functus officio’ after the declaration of the next elections. They should not pass such a resolution. Personal ideology should not be made part of an SCBA resolution.”

The court emphasised a fine distinction between an undemocratic decision and an illegal decision. “If they do not hold a general body, then come to us,” the bench said. “It is ultimately the freedom of the bar in which we will not interfere.”

The court allowed Garg to get the requisite signatures and move a request for a meeting. “While we are not inclined to entertain the petition, liberty is granted to the petitioner to explore the democratic processes as prescribed under the SCBA Rules, including the Election Committee.”