Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2503
2011 (4) MLJ 361, 2011 (3) LW 328, 2011 (5) CTC 321
High Court of Judicature at Madras
R. BANUMATHI & V. PERIYA KARUPPIAH
V.N. Subramaniam & Others
Versus
Tamil Nadu Advocate's Association Represented by its Secretary M. Baskar & Others
O.S.A.NOS.122, 123, 126 to 128, 129, 138, 140 to 149 & 154 of 2011
Decided On: 05-05-2011
For the Appellants:S. Parthasarathy, Sr. Counsel S. Lakshmanasamy, Ms.P.T. Asha for M/s. Sarvabhauman, Associates, T.R. Rajagopal, Sr. Counsel, S.S. Rajesh, Vijay Narayan, Sr. Counsel, S. Giridharan, Ms. Chitra Sampath, Abdul Waheb of M/s. Anand Abdul & Vinodh, Advocates, Elephant G. Rajendran, Party in person.
For the Respondents:R1 - S. Prabakaran, Abdul Majeed, (T.N. Advocates Assn.), R2 - K. Venkatakrishnan, S.Y. Masood (Bar Council of Tamilnadu), R3 - K. Venkatakrishnan (Bar Council of India), R8 - A.K. Sriram, R5 – No Appearance, S. Vetrivel, R.K. Chandramohan, P. Vaithialingam, Advocate of Omalur:R.C. Paul Kanagaraj, Advocates.
The Court held that the directions issued by the learned single Judge were in violation of the statutory rules and principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the learned single Judge erred in referring the affidavits of the deponents to the Election Tribunal for being treated as Election Petitions, as they were bereft of particulars and did not contain any specific allegations against any individual. The Court further held that the learned single Judge was not justified in upsetting the democratic process of election on the basis of vague averments.
Headnote:
The Court set aside the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge in the applications filed by Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran and Mr.N.S.Ziauddeen, challenging the election of 6 members to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and re-constituting the Election Tribunal. The Court held that the directions issued by the learned single Judge were in violation of the statutory rules and principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the learned single Judge erred in referring the affidavits of the deponents to the Election Tribunal for being treated as Election Petitions, as they were bereft of particulars and did not contain any specific allegations against any individual. The Court further held that the learned single Judge was not justified in upsetting the democratic process of election on the basis of vague averments. The Court also dismissed the appeal filed by Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran, seeking investigation by the police into the alleged corrupt practices during the election, as the validity of the election of a candidate could be challenged only as per the statutory provisions - Rules of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. The Court granted 15 days time from the date of the order for any voter to contest the validity of the election of a candidate declared to have been elected to the State Bar Council.
Fact of the Case:
The Court was dealing with a suit filed by the Tamil Nadu Advocates Association, challenging the election of 6 members to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. The suit also sought various directions, including a direction to the Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu not to declare the Bar Council Election results till the disposal of the suit and a direction to the Addl.D.G.P., Crime Branch C.I.D. to investigate the malpractice corrupt practices and other illegal acts which took place during the Bar Council Election. The learned single Judge had passed an order interdicting the six elected members from exercising their voting rights or discharge any functions as elected members of the Bar Council. The learned single Judge had also directed the re-constitution of the Election Tribunal and referred the affidavits of the deponents to the Election Tribunal for being treated as Election Petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the directions issued by the learned single Judge were in violation of the statutory rules and principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the learned single Judge erred in referring the affidavits of the deponents to the Election Tribunal for being treated as Election Petitions, as they were bereft of particulars and did not contain any specific allegations against any individual. The Court further held that the learned single Judge was not justified in upsetting the democratic process of election on the basis of vague averments. The Court also dismissed the appeal filed by Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran, seeking investigation by the police into the alleged corrupt practices during the election, as the validity of the election of a candidate could be challenged only as per the statutory provisions - Rules of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.
Issues: 1. Whether the directions issued by the learned single Judge were in violation of the statutory rules and principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the learned single Judge erred in referring the affidavits of the deponents to the Election Tribunal for being treated as Election Petitions? 3. Whether the learned single Judge was justified in upsetting the democratic process of election on the basis of vague averments? 4. Whether the appeal filed by Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran, seeking investigation by the police into the alleged corrupt practices during the election, was maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the directions issued by the learned single Judge were in violation of the statutory rules and principles of natural justice, as they were not in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Rules of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. 2. The Court held that the learned single Judge erred in referring the affidavits of the deponents to the Election Tribunal for being treated as Election Petitions, as they were bereft of particulars and did not contain any specific allegations against any individual. The Court held that the affidavits were not in compliance with the requirements of Rule 35 of the Rules of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. 3. The Court held that the learned single Judge was not justified in upsetting the democratic process of election on the basis of vague averments. The Court held that the learned single Judge should not have interfered with the election process in the absence of any specific allegations of corrupt practices. 4. The Court held that the appeal filed by Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran, seeking investigation by the police into the alleged corrupt practices during the election, was not maintainable, as the validity of the election of a candidate could be challenged only as per the statutory provisions - Rules of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge in the applications filed by Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran and Mr.N.S.Ziauddeen, challenging the election of 6 members to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and re-constituting the Election Tribunal. The Court also dismissed the appeal filed by Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran, seeking investigation by the police into the alleged corrupt practices during the election.
R. BANUMATHI,J
1. Being aggrieved by the common impugned Order dated 18.4.2011 in Application Nos.1739 and 1740 of 2011 filed by Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran and Application Nos.2184 and 2185 of 2011 filed by Mr.N.S.Ziauddeen in C.S.No.7 of 2011, wherein and by which the learned single Judge interdicted the six elected members viz., Mr.K.R.R.Aiyappamani, Mr.N.Marappan, Mr.K.Kathiravan, Mr.P.Paramasivam, Mr.V.N.Subramaniam and Mr.S.K.Vel from exercising their voting rights as members of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and re-constituting the Election Tribunal and also directing the above six elected members to face enquiry before the re-constituted Election Tribunal, five elected members (except Mr.K.Kathiravan) have preferred these appeals. Being aggrieved by the order denying investigation by Crime Branch, C.I.D. in respect of alleged corrupt practices during the Election of Bar Council, Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran filed O.S.A.No.154 of 2011.
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 to 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 a 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 papers 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. Stating that Plaintiff Association is interested in ensuring a free, fair and transparent election for the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to be held in March, 2011, the suit has been f
