S* SAOM:, Mom, Si^jU* TSZtSTSXn.

Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) Phone : 91-11-26968253,26968254
B.A. (Hons); MA (Cantab); Ph.D. (Cantab); PIL (Harvard) 91-11-26511343
Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India Fax : 91-11-26858818
National Spokesperson, Indian National Congress E-mails : drams59@gmail.com
Former Additional Solicitor General, India
DearShri Parekh
1. I am sad and disturbed by your letter dated May 20, 2014.
2. To summarise, in my earlier letter dated May 8, 2014 (Annexure A ), I had pointed
(a) That, Library no. 2 had been named and dedicated in honour of the late
Dr L M Singhvi under a bar resolution/decision conveyed, ironically, by
you as the then President vide letter dated December, 11, 2008 with a
further attachment, both of which are annexed collectively as Annexure
(b) Your aforesaid letter dated December 11, 2008 inter alia provided:
"1. Library No 2 to be named "Dr. L M Singhvi Library"
"3. At the entry corridor, there should be two plaques on the outside of
each entry door, i.e. one for each door."
"4. A Prominent photograph of Dr. L. M Singhvi to be put on the side of
the wall in the library, which is nearer to the corridor"
"4. The photograph would mention his name and description"
(c) There was absolutely no other condition of further or repeated or
periodic payments of the kind now raised. None was ever remotely
suggested nor agreed nor resolved. You were the President in 2008 and
also subsequently on many occasions and knowthat well. Nothing of this
sort was ever raised (rightly) for the last six years.
(d) Suddenly, for the first time on April 28, 2014 you asked for an additional
figure of Rs. 20 lacs and said that unless Rs 20 lacs are paid all over again
by us, the already dedicated library would be renamed after some other
person on payment of further monies by such person! In a nutshell,
Addl. Chambers : _. ... u. . _
Supreme Court: ulMhiHRSt:
421, New Lawyers' Chambers, HLaWny^ SH*6*
Supreme Court, Bhagwandas Road, <?hpr <S hq9 m '
New Delhi -110 001 S£er Snha,hh Su"M^'
New Delhi - 110 003
Phone: 011-23381810
All correspondence, faxes or emails to be sent only at Residence address above
therefore, you said (a) either I pay a further additional rupees twenty lacs or
(b) renovate on a list furnished by the bar costing the same figure or (c) suffer
name change (d) and that the deadline for all this was May 9, 2014 i.e.
approx 12 days.
(e) I pointed out that such demands have not, cannot and should not be
made in respect of any other eminent leaders of the Bar, their family
members or their estate. I wonder why these affections are reserved for
me. The principle adumbrated, if accepted, would mean that SCBA may
auction or and re auction ad infinitum all such resources and locations
already named or to be named after eminent persons.
2A. The SCBA has had the use and benefit of Rs. 20 lacs which I gifted in 2008 up to date
and continues to have that!
3. Subsequently, when you were kind enough to meet me on May 17, 2014, I pointed
out that though your basic demand as per para 2 (d) above was completely unilateral
and not based on any principle and neither fair nor reasonable, I would still, in the
interests of the welfare of the Bar, make a further contribution of Rs. 20 lacs, but
that, obviously, no one could agree to such repeated, periodic, incessant and ad- hoc
demands interminably in the future.
4. I therefore proposed, on May 17, 2014, four points for consensual resolution, three
of which are accurately reproduced in your letter dated May 20, 2014 viz.
(i) "A resolution be passed by the executive committee that in future
SCBA will not ask for any contribution in connection with Dr L M
Singhvi library",
(ii) "there should be an inaugural ceremony or dedication ceremony or
whatever function after the renovation is done."
(iv) "SCBA and Dr Singhvi will withdraw all the letters exchanged on this
issue and SCBA will withdraw the resolution passed"
5. The fourth condition, somewhat erroneously reproduced by you as condition (iii),
was in fact that the further contribution would be suitably recognized by the bar. I
did not suggest any particular format. I have to submit that you have wrongly
reproduced that condition as no (iii) in your letter of May 20, 2014 and the
erroneous reproduction reads as follows:
(iii) "the costly items which will be purchased out of Rs. 20 lacs, it may be
inscribed on these items that "gifted by Dr Abhisek Singhvi in memory
of late DrLM Singhvi".
6. Be that as it may, the crux of the matter is that despite the completely unilateral
demand which violates the February 11, 2008 resolution of the Bar, I have
nevertheless, in the interests of Bar welfare, de facto agreed to all your conditions
and simply suggested nominal safeguards reproduced in para 4 and 5 above of this
7. It is therefore extremely sad and distressing that your letter of May 20, 2014 reflects
continuing unilateral and high handed demands in this regard, without there being
any justification whatsoever for it. I have nevertheless strained to walk the extra mile
for a consensual and principled solution.
8. In conclusion, I might add that the Bar is a continuing institution irrespective of the
presence of mere mortals like all of us. It is sad that you and your team are not even
able to agree to nominal safeguards to prevent repetition of such unilateral demands
in future, thereby clearly suggesting that you intend to make such demands in future
on a periodic and ad-hoc basis. In simple words, your letter has the absurd
consequence that even if I were to contribute a further Rs. 20 lacs now, in addition
to the Rs. 20 lacs already contributed by me in 2008 and enjoyed by SCBA for the
last 6 years, you would be entitled at anytime in future, at the discretion of any Exco,
to demand a further periodic payment of Rs. 5 lacs or Rs. 15 lacs or Rs. 30 lacs or Rs.
40 lacs. Each time, unless such demand is met, you would be entitled to change the
name, also, in the process, ignoring and nullifying Rs. 40 lacs already paid by me! This
is truly absurd and completely unprincipled. This does not bode well for the Bar nor
the principles we tend to preach inside court rooms but clearly observe in the breach
9. The contention that you cannot bind future Exco's is specious. It is the responsibility
of the donee to find a suitable way to safeguard the donor and not vice versa. If this
logic was correct, it would conversely mean that resolutions of the SCBA Exco's are
worthless material as for as successor Exco's are concerned! I may be wrong but I
know of no institution which can function on such principles.
10. In hope and trust that each and every member of your Committee and yourself will
see my stand in the context and spirit in which it is stated and that each one of you
will treat yourselves as custodians of principle, reason and fairness and equally, I am
sure, no one will act on expediency personal animosities or predilections.
Yours sifjcerely
1. Annexure A- Earlier letter dated May 8, 2014 written by me to the Executive
committee of SCBA.
2. Annexure B- letter dated December 7, 2008 written by Dr singhvi to Mr. Parekh
and decision/resolution dated December 11, 2008 bySCBA communicated by Bar
to Dr. Singhvi

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful