B.P.Singh, J.

1. The petitioner herein is a practising advocate and a voter entitled to vote at the election held for the purpose of electing members of the Bihar State Bar Council. He has challenged the constitutional validity of Sub-sec. 3 of Sec. 8-A of the Advocates Act (as amended) on the ground that the aforesaid provisions vest arbitrary and unguided power in the Bar Council of India to constitute a Special Committee for an indefinite period, thereby depriving the members of the Bar from electing their representatives its members of the Bihar State Bar Council for an indefinite period. The petitioner has further impugned the resolution of the Bar Council of India dated 13th February 1994 us also the letter of the Bar Council of India dated 11.4.1994, informing the Secretary ol the Bar Council of Bihur that the Bar Council of India had extended for six months i.e., with effect 7.2.1994, the term of the Bar Council of the State which expired on 7th Feb., 1994. He has prayed that the Special Committee constituted under Sec. 8 of the Act be directed to hold election de novo to the Bihar State Bar Council, and not merely to continue and complete the process initiated by the defunct Bar Council of the State. It is claimed that The action taken by the erstwhile Bar Council of the State have no legal sanctity, and therefore the Special Committee appointed under Sec. 8-A of the Act should hold the election afresh.

2. At the very outset, counsel for the petitioner stated that this matter should not be treated as adversary litigation. The petitioner was. only interested in getting the law declared for the benefit of all concerned, so that it may provide guidance for the future.

3. The relevant facts of the case are not in dispute. Admittedly a notification was published in the Official Gazette on 8.2.1989 notifying the election of the members of the Bihar State Bar Council. Under Sec. 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) the term of office of elected members of Slate Bar Council is five years from the date of publication of the result of the election. Consequently, the term of office of elected members of the Bar Council of the State was to come to an end on the 7th February, 1994. Under Sec. 8 of the Act as it stood before its amendment by Act 70 of 1993 which came into effect from 27.12.1993. an outgoing member of the State Bar Council could continue in office until the publication of result of the election of his successor. The amendment brought about in the year 1993 made a significant change in Sec. 8 of the Act, and also inserted a new Sec. 8-A. By the amendment of Sec. 8 it was provided that where the State Bar Council failed to provide for the election of its members before the expiry of the term of five years, the Bar Council of India may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the said term for a period not exceeding six months. I shall consider Sec. 8A later. Having regard to the amendment to Sec. 8 of the Act, a meeting of the State Bar Council was held, and it was resolved that since it had decided to provide for the election of its members and as it was not possible to complete the election before the expiry of the term on 8.2.1994 the Bar Council of India should be requested to extend the term of the State Bar Council for six months. Consequently, an application was made to the Bar Council of India on 27.1.1994 for extending the term of the Bar Council of the State for a period of six months. In the meantime the State Bar Council took steps to provide for the election of its members. Five assistants were required to prepare the draft electoral roll, but on 28.1.1994 the Secretary of the Bar Council of the State wrote to the Chairman that the preparation of draft electoral roll manually would take considerable time, The Chairman directed that the matter be placed before the Executive Committee, which in term decided the prepare computerised electoral roll. Further