Back
2011 (2) LW 776, 2011 (5) MLJ 401
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. BANUMATHI & V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH
R.K. Chandramohan
Versus
Elephant G. Rajendran & Others
O.S.A.NOS.78 & 79 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.1 of 2011
Decided On: 09-04-2011
Bar Council of Tamil Nadu - Election Dispute - Advocates Act, 1961, Section 3, Section 8 - The judgment discusses the dispute regarding the election and appointment of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. The court considered the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, particularly Section 3 and Section 8, which govern the establishment and election process of the State Bar Council. The court's decision was influenced by the need to ensure free and fair elections, as well as the statutory rights and obligations of the Bar Council.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the election and appointment of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. The appellant, a former Chairman of the Bar Council, sought permission to assume office and contest for the Chairmanship for the term 2010-2015. The suit was filed by the Tamil Nadu Advocates Association, alleging malpractices in the previous election and seeking a declaration that the upcoming election was null and void, and the appointment of a retired Judge to conduct the election.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was not filed in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C., and the requirements of Order 1 Rule 8 were not complied with. However, the court noted that the suit had sufficient notice and participation from the Bar Associations, and the court had continually monitored the election process. The court held that the appellant was a necessary party to the suit and allowed his impleadment. The court also found that the relief granted by the lower court was within the scope of the suit, considering the need for free and fair elections and the irregularities in the previous election.
Issues: The issues involved the compliance with Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C., the scope of relief sought in the suit, and the appellant's right to contest the election and assume office as Chairman.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was not filed in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C., but the appellant was a necessary party to the suit. The court also found that the relief granted by the lower court was within the scope of the suit, considering the need for free and fair elections and the irregularities in the previous election.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the lower court's order, directing the Bar Council not to permit the appellant to assume office or discharge the functions as an elected member until the disposal of the disciplinary proceedings by the Bar Council of India or until he obtains appropriate direction from the Supreme Court, whichever is earlier.
R. BANUMATHI, J
1. Whether the appellant is permitted to assume office as a member and whether he is to be allowed to contest for Chairmanship of Tamil Nadu State Bar Council for the term 2010-2015 is the point falling for consideration in these appeals. Being aggrieved by the Order 8.3.2011 made in Application Nos.1244 and 1245 of 2011 in C.S.No.7 of 2011, appellant/former Chairman of Bar Council of State of Tamil Nadu has come forward with these appeals.
2. The suit - C.S.No.7 of 2011 arises on the following facts:
The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu is a statutory body created under the Advocates Act, 1961 with statutory rights and obligations. As per Section 3 of Advocates Act, there shall be a State Bar Council. As per section 3(3) of the Act, there shall be a Chairman and Vice-Chairman of each State Bar Council elected by the Council in such manner as may be prescribed. As per Section 8 of the Act, the term of office of elected member of a State Bar Council shall be five years from the date of publication of the result of his election.
3. The last election to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu was held on 20.9.2005 and the Council was constituted on 12.10.2005. The term of office of the State Bar Council expired on 11.10.2010. In terms of the provisions of Section 8 of the Advocates Act and by virtue of resolution No.77 of 2010 passed by the Bar Council of India, the term of office of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu was extended for a period of six months with effect from 12.10.2010. On the strength of the said extension, the State Bar Council convened a meeting on 23.12.2010 and passed resolutions fixing the date of election for the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry on 4.3.2011. By another resolution, special committee comprising of five senior advocates of High Court viz., Mr.G.Masilamani, Mr.M.Raveendran, Mr.S.V.Jayaramn, Mr.M.Venkatachalapathy and Mr.T.V.Ramanujam were appointed to scrutinise and monitor the conduct of the ensuing election with power to issue suitable instructions for the conduct of free and fair election and also power to nominate any number of advocates. To assist them in the conduct of elections., three advocates viz., Mr. T.V.Krishnakumar, Mr.S.Muthukrishnan and Mr.K.Mahendiran were appointed as Election tribunal as contemplated by the Rules. By 4th resolution, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu resolved to hand over the administration of the State Bar Council to the Advocate General with power to sign the cheques and operate the Bank accounts jointly with the Secretary. The election notification was issued on 27.12.2010 and the same was published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part VI - Section 1, No.51-A. The notification was also published in the news paper on the following day and Press Release was issued by the Advocate General on 30.12.2010 confirming the election schedule and the appointment of the Secretary to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu as the Returning Officer.
4. The 1st respondent - Tamil Nadu Advocates Association is registered under the Societies Registration Act with Registration No.98/2008. In the plaint in C.S.No.7 of 2011, the 1st respondent/Plaintiff Association alleged that in the earlier election held in 2005, the election was marred by unprecedented malpractices and gross irregularities were committed by many contesting members. With a view to ensure free, fair and transparent election for the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to be held in March, 2011, the suit has been filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff represented by its Secretary seeking (i) for declaration that the Press Release dated 30.12.2010 (R.O.C.No.1733 of 2010) announcing the election to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu on 4.3.2011 is null and void (ii) declaring that the electoral rolls published by State Bar Council is for the election of its members to be held on 4.3.2011 is null and void (iii) appointing a retired Judge of the High Court to conduct the election of members to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu right from the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
