[2007(3) ADJ 540 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : A.K. YOG AND TARUN AGARWALA, JJ.
SHIV KUMAR AKELA AND OTHERS ——Petitioners
Versus
REGISTRAR, SOCIETIES, FIRMS AND CHITS, ALLAHABAD AND OTHERS —Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55898 of 2004, decided on 28th February, 2007)
(B) Public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.)—Writ petition in nature of—Filed by two members of High Court Bar Association—Against Bar Association and its office bearers, questioning functioning of Bar Association—Seeking relief for protection of public faith in governance of justice delivery system in larger interest and welfare of general public—Maintainable, as it raises issues of vital significance related to members of Bar Association and legal profession and to ensure healthy functioning of Bar Association. [Constitution of India—Article 226]. [Paras 45, 47 and 58]
(C) Allahabad High Court Bar Association—Preservation of rights and privileges of its members from Non Resident Advocate (N.R.A.)—Measures to be taken for elimination of N.R.A. members from list of members of Bar Association—It is incumbent upon High Court to take steps in this regard—Right to entry in Court premises and right to appear in Court—Are subject to control of Court and within its exclusive domain—Right to practice, as given by Section 30—Is inextricably linked with power of High Court to make Rules under Section 34 by laying down conditions for exercise of that right—There is no conflict between Sections 30, 34 and Article 145—High Court elaborated Rules of Allahabad High Court Bar Association, Rules of Allahabad High Court, Rules of Bar Council of U.P. and provisions of Societies Registration Act, explaining ambit of these provisions and issued mandamus to Registrar, Societies, Firms and Chits to take necessary steps by taking help of High Court Bar Association and also to U.P. Bar Council for preparing Model Bye-Laws—Directions to Registrar General High Court were also issued for necessary steps. [Advocates Act, 1961, Sections 30, 34 and 49—Rules of the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad, Rules 4, 6, 9, 12, 18, 29, 30, 34 and 52—Rules of Court (Allahabad High Court), 1952, Chapter XXIV, Rule 3-A—Constitution of India, Articles 145 and 226—Societies Registration Act, 1860, Sections 12-A, 13-A, 13-B, 15(2), 22, 24 and 25—Bar Council of U.P. Election Rules, 1992, Rule 3(c)]. [Paras 74 to 76, 79 to 85, 88, 93, 97 and 98]
Hon’ble A.K. Yog, J.—In the writ-petition before us, we are called upon, to deal with an issue which is both disturbing as well as vital to the ‘Administration of Justice’.
2. Petitioners are ‘regular legal practitioners’ in High Court, Allahabad. One of them, Ms. Sadhna Upadhyaya, is the former Secretary of HCBA (HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION ALLAHABAD), which is a Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 (as amended in the State of U.P.). They are undisputedly members of Allahabad High Court ‘BAR’. These ‘Advocates’-on their behalf and on behalf of other ‘Advocates’, ordinarily practicing in High Court, Allahabad are aggrieved and complain of being deprived of their ‘rights’ and ‘privileges’ by none else but ‘Advocates’—who are not ordinarily practicing in High Court, Allahabad and/or not in legal profession at all, for convenience—collectively referred to as ‘NRA’ (Non Resident Advocates). They have approached this Court aspiring for protection and expect the Court to save them from being exploited by ‘NRA’ and to enable them to enjoy their privileges and rights in law and enable ‘bonafide’ and ‘genuine’ legal practioners of Allahabad High Court (particularly members of HCBA) to manage the ‘BAR’ in its pursuit to secure ‘Aims and Objects’ enshrined under ‘Bye Laws’ of HCBA, titled HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION RULES (hereinafter called-HCBA Rules). It is a strange and paradoxial situation in the ‘BAR’.
3. Advocates, legal practitioners of Allahabad High Court, supposed to protect legal rights of others and stand for the cause of ‘justice’, are themselves clamouring for being ‘protected’ under law and saved from exploitation at the hands of NRA. It is an ‘irony’ of the prevailing circumstances.
Case of the petitioners :
4. According to the petitioners, there is an influx of Non-Resident Members (NRA-with no right to vote), under guise of Advocates ordinarily practicing in the High Court at Allahabad as ordinary member of HCBA (with right to vote in the meetings of HCBA)—as contemplated under HCBA Rules. NRA are inducted as Ordinary Members clandestinely in HCBA by the ‘prospective-candidate/s’ for future election of Governing Body of HCBA taking recourse to unethical means/practices i.e. allurements—including ‘financial-funding’ to sponsor ‘membership’ and raise number of votes in their favour—though they are not practicing in High Court, Allahabad or at all anywhere and/or clear arrears of existing members of HCBA as ‘bribe’ to cast ‘Votes’ in their favour in coming Elections of HCBA. It is contended that ‘NRAs’, camouflaged as ‘Advocates’ practicing in High Court (called ‘Ordinary-members in HCBA Rules) are smuggled in HCBA for election purpose only. Success in BAR Election is mustered on the strength of NRA and depends solely upon ‘manipulative-majority’. Mandate in election is ‘ILLUSORY’ opposed to genuine wish of bonafide-legal practitioners of High Court, Allahabad. The entire process of ‘Election’ is a hoax. High Court BAR is in turmoil, and put to ransom by NRA-precipitating crisis in the administration of Justice in the State. Votes are secured, not on the basis of their ‘merit’ or ‘popularity’, but extracted through ‘Money’, ‘Muscle’, and ‘Manipulation’. ‘Candidates’ elected do not represent wish of majority of ‘legal practitioners of High Court, Allahabad. The three ‘M’ (‘Money’, ‘Muscle’ and ‘Manipulations’) are the secret of success in HCBA elections. Key offices (viz. President/Secretary) in the Governing Body of HCBA are being grabbed surreptitiously by ‘tricks’. Such elected ‘office-bearers’ or NRAs are hardly concerned with the standards of ‘Legal Profession’ or working of the High Court as such.
5. The petitioners lament over prevailing status of the BAR wherein ‘regular-legal practitioners’ are, like outsiders forced to sit on fence as ‘moot spectators’ in the affairs of HCBA. Such a ‘Governing Body’ of HCBA has no concern with the ‘Aims and Objects’ set out in HCBA Rules. Facilities/privile
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.