The Supreme Court has refused to restrain the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) from passing resolutions before its elections, observing that the Court cannot interfere in the democratic functioning of the Bar Association.
Supreme Court Declines to Interfere in SCBA’s Internal Affairs
The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a plea seeking to prevent the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) from passing any unilateral resolutions until its elections are conducted.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan observed that the matter related to the internal functioning of the Bar Association and did not warrant judicial intervention.
Court Says Democratic Process Must Continue
During the hearing, the Bench emphasised that the Court cannot interfere with the democratic process governing a professional association.
The judges observed that the affairs of the SCBA are to be managed through its own institutional mechanisms, and disputes relating to its functioning should ordinarily be addressed within the Association itself.
Petitioner Challenged SCBA Resolution
The petition was filed by advocate Ashish Gopal Garg, who challenged a resolution adopted by the SCBA expressing solidarity with environmental activist Sonam Wangchuk.
The petitioner argued that such resolutions should not be passed before the Association’s elections and sought directions restraining the Executive Committee from adopting further resolutions until a new body is elected.
Supreme Court Suggests Alternative Remedy
Refusing to entertain the plea, the Supreme Court advised the petitioner to approach the SCBA’s Election Committee or the appropriate internal forum if he had any grievance regarding the functioning of the Association.
The Bench made it clear that issues concerning the internal administration of the Bar Association should first be resolved through the mechanisms available under its own rules.
Also Read: BCI Warns Unapproved Law Colleges Against Admissions; Several NLUs Yet to Reflect 2026–27 Approval
Resolution Related to Sonam Wangchuk
The challenged resolution was adopted after Sonam Wangchuk began a fast highlighting concerns relating to the NEET examination process and broader issues affecting the education system.
The SCBA had appealed to Wangchuk to end his fast, stating that his continued participation in public life was more valuable than risking his health. The Association also expressed concern over the issues raised during the protest.
Court Leaves SCBA’s Decision Untouched
By refusing to entertain the petition, the Supreme Court left the SCBA’s resolution undisturbed and reiterated that courts should avoid intervening in the democratic functioning of professional bodies unless exceptional circumstances justify such interference.
Key Takeaways
- Supreme Court refused to restrain SCBA from passing resolutions.
- The Court said it cannot interfere with the Bar Association’s democratic process.
- The dispute was held to concern SCBA’s internal affairs.
- The petitioner was asked to approach the SCBA Election Committee.
- The plea challenged a resolution expressing solidarity with Sonam Wangchuk.
- No relief was granted by the Supreme Court.
Case: Ashish Gopal Garg v. Supreme Court Bar Association & Others
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohan
