The court highlighted the importance of authoritative pronouncements on the interpretation of rules and statutes, the need for resolving internal disputes within the Bar Association, and refrained from making final decisions on last-minute petitions.

( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition by Mr. Chandra Narayan Tripathi who proposes to contest for the post of Secretary in the impending elections of the Bar Association, High Court Allahabad, due to be held on 2. 3. 2006.

( 2 ) THIS matter was referred to the full Bench on account of the importance of the issues involved, both for the Judiciary and for the Bar. Arguments have been made on this occasion by several learned advocates, some of whom we shall mention hereafter. The last elections of the Bar Association were held as far back as in the month of December, 2003 and thereafter the elections have long been overdue. Instead of the usual prescribed period of one year, nearly two and a half years have gone by.

( 3 ) FOR the purpose of these elections, the General Council of the Bar Association met on or about 30th September, 2005 and they fixed the 15th of November of that year as the last date for deposit of arrears of fees by the members who intended to cast their votes in the election. The last date was extended from time to time; the last such formal extension being decided in the said General Council on the 22nd of December, 2005 and the last extended date was the 6th of February this year.

( 4 ) EVEN thereafter a short informal extension was granted, because several persons wished to clear their dues and they had not kept to the deadline of the 6th of February. A last extension was granted up to the 10th of February, there being the Mohammadan Moharram on the 9th. By a general body meeting of the Bar Association held on the 14th of February 2006, the Returning Officers were fixed upon and the voters list was prepared. The 20th, 21st and 22nd of February were fixed for filing of nomination papers and the 23rd was the last date fixed for withdrawal therefrom. As such, some reasonable attempts have been made and some reasonable notices have at least been given for notification of the due date. Principally four grievances were raised before us. The first one of the problems raised was that under Rule 4 of the rules of the Bar Association now in existence, honorary members, non-resident members and ordinary members are there, and amongst the ordinary members only those advocates would be eligible to vote who are practising in the High Court.

( 5 ) IT was said that in the list of some 3700 advocates drawn up, at present, there are several advocates who are not practising in the High Court, and therefore, that list needs to be recast; otherwise the elections would be no election. We put a query, that if there is a dispute whether a duly qualified advocate, enrolled on the rolls of the U. P. Bar Council is an advocate practising in the High Court or not, who would decide that dispute? The answer really is, that nobody yet knows; that there has been no authoritative pronouncement yet. Our second query was, who is an advocate practising in the High Court within the meaning of the said rule 4 of the Bar Association? There is no pronouncement in that regard yet either. It is well known that words and sentences in rules and statutes do not always exactly mean the same thing in every place. Thus there is need for an authoritative pronouncement in this regard also.

( 6 ) THESE are important issues for the Bar Association. If the voters list is to be drawn up in a relaxed way, then and in that event, the problem of numerous membership of the Bar Association arises. This puts great pressure on the limited resources available. On the other hand, if a strict construction is put, and some advocates, who perhaps do not have many briefs or any briefs yet, want to come to the High Court, to go on trying their luck here, year after year, they might say, that their rights are being unfairly affected by keeping them out of the voters list simply because they do not have clients, or a sufficient number of clients.

( 7 ) WE raise these queries but we do not answer these questions. The second point was raised by Mrs. Sadhana Upadhaya, who is a prospectiv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document