Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. R. K. TRIVEDI, M. C. JAIN
AMRENDRA NATH SINGH - Appellant
Versus
BAR COUNCIL OF U.P. - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 36101 Of 1999
Decided On : 02/01/2000
The Allahabad High Court ruled on the validity of the election of the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, addressing challenges to the electoral roll and the inclusion of certain candidates. The Court held that the electoral roll was prepared in accordance with the law and that the exclusion of certain advocates for non-payment of subscription was justified. The Court also held that the disqualification of an advocate convicted of criminal contempt of court did not apply in this case, as the sentence was suspended and the advocate was not imprisoned. The Court further held that the non-joinder of contesting candidates as parties to the writ petition was not fatal to the petition. Finally, the Court directed the State Bar Council to strictly comply with the requirements of the rules before depriving any advocate of the right to practice.
Fact of the Case:
Several writ petitions were filed challenging the election of the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, alleging irregularities in the preparation of the electoral roll and the inclusion of certain candidates. The petitioners sought to have the election set aside and a fresh election conducted.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the electoral roll was prepared in accordance with the law and that the exclusion of certain advocates for non-payment of subscription was justified. The Court also held that the disqualification of an advocate convicted of criminal contempt of court did not apply in this case, as the sentence was suspended and the advocate was not imprisoned. The Court further held that the non-joinder of contesting candidates as parties to the writ petition was not fatal to the petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the electoral roll was prepared in accordance with the law? 2. Whether the exclusion of certain advocates for non-payment of subscription was justified? 3. Whether the disqualification of an advocate convicted of criminal contempt of court applied in this case? 4. Whether the non-joinder of contesting candidates as parties to the writ petition was fatal to the petition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the electoral roll was prepared in accordance with the law, as it was based on the existing list of advocates maintained by the State Bar Council and complied with the relevant rules. 2. The Court held that the exclusion of certain advocates for non-payment of subscription was justified, as it was a valid disqualification under the rules and the advocates had been given sufficient notice of the requirement to pay the subscription. 3. The Court held that the disqualification of an advocate convicted of criminal contempt of court did not apply in this case, as the sentence was suspended and the advocate was not imprisoned. The Court found that the disqualification only applied to advocates who had been imprisoned for an offence involving moral turpitude. 4. The Court held that the non-joinder of contesting candidates as parties to the writ petition was not fatal to the petition, as the petition was not seeking to set aside the election but only to challenge the validity of the electoral roll.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petitions, finding that the electoral roll was prepared in accordance with the law, that the exclusion of certain advocates for non-payment of subscription was justified, that the disqualification of an advocate convicted of criminal contempt of court did not apply in this case, and that the non-joinder of contesting candidates as parties to the writ petition was not fatal to the petition.
( 1 ) THE aforesaid three writ petitions have been filed challenging the actions/omissions of Bar council of Uttar Pradesh pertaining to the election held for constituting fresh Bar Council and thus, questions of law and fact involved in all the writ petitions are similar and they can be diposed of by a common judgment. The writ petition No. 36101 of 1999 shall be the leading case. The relief claimed in the writ petitions are not identical and so also the pleadings, however, the undisputed facts between the parties are that on the basis of the last election Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, assumed office on 17-6-1994 and its term of five years was to expire on 16-6-1999. However, as the Bar Council failed to provide for the election of its members before expiry of the term of five years the Bar Council of India by an order extended the term for a period of six months in exercise of power conferred under the proviso to Section 8 of Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). During this extended period of term Secretary of Bar Council by the notice dated 8-8-1999 declared the scheme of election. Under this scheme nominations were filed between 15/09/1999 to 6/10/1999, Scrutiny of the nomination papers took place between 8th to 10/10/1999. The last date for withdrawal of the nomination was 16/10/1999. Thereafter, election took place between 11/11/1999 to 1 9/11/1999 in different places on different dates as provided in the notice dated 8-8-1999. After the election counting of the votes is in progress. It is to be noted that six months period for which the term of Bar Council was extended also expired on 17-12-1999. In the Election 143 Advocate candidates participated including Shri Amrendra Nath Singh (petitioner of writ petition 36101 of 1999), Shri T. P Singh and Shri V. C. Mishra (petitioner and respondent No. 4 respectively of writ petition No. 41905 of 1999 ).
( 2 ) WRIT Petition No. 36101 of 1999 was filed on 23/08/1999 claiming relief that the circular letter dated 11/07/1999, Annexure IV to the Writ Petition, addressed to the District Judges of all the districts of State of Uttar Pradesh may be quashed, by this letter Secretary of Board Council requested the District Judges to display the list of Advocates sent along with the letter (Annexure IV) who have paid the subscription under Rule 40 of Bar Council of India Rules (hereinafter referred to as the rules) and also to notify that advocates whose names are not shown in the list, have not paid their subscriptions under the aforesaid rules. Letter further stated that Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh has taken decision that such advocates may pay their subscriptions along with late fee up to 31/07/1999. If the subscription is not paid by 31/07/1999 they shall be deemed to have been suspended from practice as the advocates. It has been further requested that only these advocates may be allowed to practice, who are legally entitled under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
( 3 ) SECOND relief claimed in the writ petition is for writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respective District Judges not to prohibit the advocates from practice whose names are mentioned in State roll, in pursuance of the impugned letter dated 11/07/1999. Third relief claimed is for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents namely Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and the Chairman of Electoral Committee to expedite the preparation of the electoral roll in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules and other provisions of the Act.
( 4 ) WRIT Petition No. 38756 of 1999 was filed on 8/09/1999. The only relief claimed in this petition is to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Secretary, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to add the word disqualified against the name of Shri Vinay Chandra Mishra in the final electoral roll prepared, petitioner, Pramod Kumar claims himself to be a practising
AI
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
