Supreme Court Rejects Defense Against Kapil Sibal Over Statement Released Regarding RG Kar Rape-Murder As SCBA President

The Supreme Court today, Senior Advocate Dr. By Adish C Aggarwala (former Supreme Court Bar Association President) Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal as the current SCBA President, RG Kar Faculty of Medicine rape and murder case.

a bench Judges Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan Aggarwala’s application was dismissed as withdrawn, stating that the Court considered all SCBA Presidents as leaders of the Bar Association and there should be no factionalism or fights among the members.

The application was considered during the hearing Litigation regarding electoral reforms at SCBAhere the Court has previously Redirected 1/3 bookings For women in SCBA roles. In this regard, the court was informed that some suggestions of the Bar Association members were sent to the SCBA. Accordingly, the Court directed that all suggestions be collected and uploaded on the Supreme Court website.

Later, Aggarwala’s application was accepted. He alleged that Sibal, who was appointed to represent the State of West Bengal in the RG Kar case, issued the statement without consulting other SCBA members. However, Judge Kant found the application inappropriate and interrupted him.

In a lighter tone, the judge said the only mistake Sibal made was not taking Aggarwala for a cup of coffee. Sibal, who attended the meeting, said: “I’m ready to offer him more”.

When Aggarwala insisted, Justice Kant stated that the Court considers SCBA Presidents (current and former) as Bar Association leaders and members should not indulge in factionalism/quarrels.

“For us, Mr. Kapil Sibal, you, Mr. Parekh, you are all leaders of the Bar… you are the pillar and strength of the Bar… that is why we look to you when we talk about reforms.”

At this point, Aggarwala requested that Sibal be asked to state categorically that he will not repeat such behavior (passing resolutions without consultation), otherwise SCBA’s democracy will come to an end. He also alleged that SCBA members raised the issue but Sibal did not address it. Judge Kant responded in the same way:

“Mr. Sibal is not only a senior MP, but also a senior lawyer… He knows what needs to be done for the Bar Association, for the welfare and benefit of the Bar Association. He knows his responsibilities.”

What was the application about?

Aggarwala filed an application challenging the decision of SCBA President Sibal dated 21.08.2024; “He described the incident as a sign of resentment”. The decision is as follows:

“The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) deeply appreciates the concern expressed by the Hon’ble Bench of the Chief Justice of India over the unrest prevailing in the country and wanton violence against women, including female interns and others in hospitals. SCBA is concerned that the Supreme Court of India It supports the historic steps it has taken to address concerns, in particular the steps taken to establish a policy framework with protocols to prevent the recurrence of such barbaric events.

What happened at RG Kar Medical Faculty and Hospital is a sign of resentment.

Now that the investigation has been handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation, we believe that justice will be served and the accused will be punished appropriately.

“SCBA expresses its solidarity with the Court’s concerns and hopes and prays that such incidents across the country will not be repeated.”

Aggarwala alleged that Sibal had issued the statement on SCBA’s letterhead without holding any virtual/physical meeting of the Executive Committee. As such, the declaration is contrary to the SCBA Rules and is therefore void.

The application stated that on 22.08.2024, 11 of the 21 elected members of the SCBA Executive Committee wrote a letter to Sibal expressing their strong objection to this statement.

It was in Aggarwala’s case that Sibal allegedly passed the order to influence the court and the investigation. He thereby undermined the credibility and integrity of the SCBA.

“SCBA President Mr. Kapil Sibal represents the West Bengal government in matters related to RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata and at the same time uses his position to undermine the seriousness of the incident and showcase the conflict between the two countries. He personally passed the Resolution which allegedly pertains to very sensitive issues of the country.” “to gain benefit by publishing”, said the former SCBA President.

Aggarwala also stated that he wrote a letter to Sibal on 23.08.2024 urging him to withdraw the decision. This letter stated that if Sibal did not withdraw the decision and make a public apology within 72 hours, Aggarwala and other SCBA members would be forced to move a no-confidence motion against him (removing him from the post of President).

Since Sibal did not move to take the letter forward, Aggarwala said he filed a no-confidence motion. However, in order to give a valid representation before the Special General Assembly against the SCBA President, the Court’s decision dated 04.03.2024 will need to be complied with.

He stated that the new voter list of the BSK was prepared with the instruction dated 04.03.2024. Therefore, there was uncertainty about who could sign the declaration. In this regard, the application requested clarification of the Court’s decision dated 04.03.2024.

In context, the order dated 04.03.2024 is as follows: “We are prima facie satisfied that all members entitled to stand and vote at elections under Rule 18 of the SCBA Rules shall have the right to be invited to and participate in a Special General Meeting to be held in accordance with Rule 22 of these Rules”.

Case Title: SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION v. BD KAUSHIK, Journal No. 13992-2023