S* SAOM:, Mom, Si^jU* TSZtSTSXn.mmMember of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) Phone : 91-11-26968253,26968254B.A. (Hons); MA (Cantab); Ph.D. (Cantab); PIL (Harvard) 91-11-26511343Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India Fax : 91-11-26858818National Spokesperson, Indian National Congress E-mails : drams59@gmail.comFormer Additional Solicitor General, India

21.5.14

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

out:

(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.

(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 know that 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, H LaWny^ 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

letter.

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

outside.

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

AbhisrteKSinghvi

Enclosed

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 by SCBA communicated by Bar

to Dr. Singhvi