The statutory nature of the right to vote and contest elections, and the absence of power to waive subscription dues as per the Rules and Regulations of the High Court Bar Association.

Augustine George Masih, J.:-

1. Petitioner, who is an advocate, and got herself enrolled under the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana on 09.09.2014, was allotted Enrollment No. P/2192/2014. She applied for membership of the Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association (hereinafter referred to as 'High Court Bar Association') and was granted the same on 30.10.2014. After becoming the member of the High Court Bar Association, the petitioner states that she is practising in this Court and appearing regularly in cases.

2. On 17.03.2015, elections of the High Court Bar Association was declared. Date of election was fixed as 23.04.2015. Last date for submission of nomination forms was 09.04.2015. Petitioner being member of the High Court Bar Association finding her name in the voters list at Sr. No. 4195 filled the nomination form for the post of Lady Member Executive and deposited the requisite application fee of `10,000/-.

3. Petitioner alleges that she has been orally informed by the Election Committee of the High Court Bar Association-respondent No. 3 that her name is deleted from the voters list for the reason that she was given waiver of subscription dues and since she has no right to vote, her nomination for the post of Lady Member Executive is rejected.

4. This action of the Election Committee of the High Court Bar Association-respondent No. 3 has been challenged by the petitioner in this petition on the ground that her name has been wrongly deleted from the voters list without giving her an opportunity of hearing. She further submits that petitioner had not made any application for waiver of subscription. In fact, she came to know about the waiver having been given to her only on the day when she went to submit subscription dues in the office of the High Court Bar Association. After coming to know that she had been given the waiver like other members of subscription dues which is not justified as per the orders passed by this Court, she has paid all her dues on 24.04.2015. In support of this, she has placed on record the receipt issued by the High Court Bar Association (Annexure P-7). She contends that at the time of submission of nomination, she was not told that those candidates who are given waiver of subscription dues are not eligible to vote or to contest for any post of the Governing body of the High Court Bar Association. She contends that even under the Rules and Regulations of the High Court Bar Association, it is not mentioned that there is no power to waive off the subscription with the Executive Committee or the office-bearers of the High Court Bar Association. She contends that for the fault of the Executive Committee of the High Court Bar Association granting the waiver to advocates who have recently enrolled themselves with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana as an advocate was meant for the benefit of the young lawyers who have just joined the profession. This has been done for a justified reason and is not wrong as it is the duty of the High Court Bar Association to work for the welfare of the advocates and to fight for their dignity and respect. In any case, this practice of waiver of subscription for initial two years to the junior advocates has been continuing for the last 3-4 years and members have earlier also been contesting the elections taking the benefit of the said waiver in subscription, therefore, an exception cannot be carved out in the case of the petitioner. She contends that in case the nomination of the petitioner is permitted to cancel, at this stage, it would be a issue of her dignity and respect in the High Court Bar Association and that too, without any fault on her part. A valuable right has accrued to the petitioner which cannot be taken away with retrospective effect as she had already submitted her nomination papers. The decision of declaring the waiver in subscription to be not in accordance with law, can only be perspective in nature and not retrospective. It can cause serious harm to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document