Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Against Kapil Sibal Over Statement Issued As SCBA President On RG Kar Rape-Murder

The Supreme Court today refused to entertain an application filed by Senior Advocate Dr Adish C Aggarwala (former Supreme Court Bar Association President) assailing the issuance of a statement by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, as the current SCBA President, in connection with the RG Kar Medical College rape and murder case.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed as withdrawn Aggarwala's application, remarking that the Court looks at all SCBA Presidents as leaders of the Bar and there should not be any sort of groupism or fighting among the members.

The application was taken up while hearing the case pertaining to electoral reforms in SCBA, wherein the Court earlier directed 1/3rd reservation for women in SCBA posts. With regard to the same, the court was informed that certain suggestions from members of the Bar have been sent to SCBA. Accordingly, the Court directed that all suggestions be collated and uploaded on the Supreme Court website.

Subsequently, Aggarwala's application was taken up. He contended that Sibal, engaged to represent the State of West Bengal in the RG Kar case, issued the statement without consulting other members of SCBA. However, Justice Kant cut him short, deeming the application unwarranted.

The judge said in a lighter vein that the only mistake Sibal committed was that he did not take Aggarwala for a cup of coffee. Joining in, Sibal said, "I am willing to offer him more".

When Aggarwala persisted, Justice Kant expressed that the Court looks at Presidents of SCBA (present and former) as leaders of the Bar and the members should not indulge in groupism/fighting. 

"For us, Mr Kapil Sibal, you, Mr Parekh, all of you are leaders of the Bar...you are the pillars and strength of the Bar...therefore, we look towards you people when we are talking of reforms."

At this point, Aggarwala beseeched that Sibal be asked to categorically state that he would not repeat such conduct (pass resolution without consultation), otherwise, democracy of SCBA will go. He also alleged that SCBA members have raised the issue but Sibal has not taken it up. Justice Kant responded to the same, saying,

"Mr Sibal is not only a senior parliamentarian but also a senior advocate...he knows what is to be done for the Bar and for the welfare and benefit of the Bar. He knows his responsibilities."

What was the application about?

Aggarwala filed the application assailing passing of a resolution dated 21.08.2024 by Sibal, as SCBA President, wherein "he described the incident as symptomatic of malaise". The resolution read thus:

"Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) deeply appreciates the concern expressed by the Bench headed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India at the malaise which is prevailing in the country and the wanton violence against women in hospitals, including women interns and others. The SCBA endorses the historic steps taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to address these concerns, especially steps taken to put in place a policy framework along with protocols to prevent the recurrence of such barbaric incidents.

What happened in R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital symptomatic of the malaise.

Now, that the investigation is handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation, we trust that justice will be done and the accused appropriately punished.

SCBA expresses its solidarity with the concern of the Court and hope and pray that such incidents that have taken throughout the country are not repeated."

Aggarwala claimed that Sibal issued the statement on the letterhead of SCBA without holding any virtual/physical meeting of the Executive Committee. As such, the statement was contrary to the SCBA Rules and therefore invalid.

The application mentioned that on 22.08.2024, 11 out of 21 elected members of SCBA Executive Committee wrote a letter to Sibal raising strong objections to the statement.

It was Aggarwala's case that Sibal purportedly issued the resolution to influence the Court and the investigation. As such, he undermined the credibility and integrity of the SCBA.

"Mr. Kapil Sibal, President of SCBA is representing the government of West Bengal in matters related to R. G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata and at the same time he is using his position to undermine the gravity of the incident and has exhibited conflict of interest by personally issuing the alleged Resolution on very sensitive issues of the country", said the ex-SCBA President.

Aggarwala further mentioned that on 23. 08.2024, he wrote a letter to Sibal urging him to withdraw the resolution. This letter stated that if Sibal did not withdraw the resolution and issue a public apology within 72 hours, Aggarwala and other SCBA members would be constrained to move a no-confidence motion against him (to remove him from the post of President).

As Sibal did not act in furtherance of the letter, Aggarwala said that he was moving a no-confidence motion. However, to be able to place a valid representation before the Special General Meeting against the SCBA President, compliance of an order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the Court would be necessary.

He submitted that after order dated 04.03.2024, a fresh voter list of SCBA was prepared. As such, there was ambiguity regarding who would be eligible to sign the representation. Accordingly, the application sought clarification of the Court's order dated 04.03.2024.

For context, the order dated 04.03.2024 read thus: "We are prima facie satisfied that all those members who are eligible to contest and vote in the elections in terms of Rule 18 of the SCBA Rules, shall be eligible to be invited and participate in the Special General Meeting to be convened under Rule 22 of these Rules".

Case Title: SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION Versus B.D. KAUSHIK, Diary No. 13992-2023