Back
2017 Supreme(All) 1906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Arun Tandon, Rajul Bhargava, JJ.
Anil Pratap Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Bar Council of India and others - Respondents
C.M.W.P. No. 56901 of 2016, 5271 of 2017
Decided On : 10-03-2017
For the Petitioner:Anoop Trivedi, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ashish Kumar Singh, Ashutosh Dwivedi, Rajeev Mishra and Sai Girdhar, Advocates
Headnote:
No Confidence Motion - Bar Council Chairman - Advocates Act, 1961, Sections 7, 15, 48-A, 48-B, 49(i) - The court examined the legality of a no confidence motion brought against the Chairman of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and the procedure to be adopted. It held that the guidelines issued by the Bar Council of India in a Gazette Notification dated 27.4.2016 were binding on the State Bar Council until statutory rules were framed. The court found that the motion of no confidence against the Chairman was unsustainable as it was brought contrary to the guidelines. It also emphasized the need for the Bar Council of India to finalize the guidelines for no confidence motions and for State Bar Councils to frame statutory rules under Section 15 of the Advocates Act.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two writ petitions pertaining to a motion of no confidence brought against the Chairman of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and the procedure to be adopted. The Chairman challenged the legality of the resolution made by the U.P. State Bar Council, while three members of the U.P. State Bar Council sought to quash a notification containing the resolution of the Bar Council of India and to direct the framing of rules in consonance with the democratic structure enumerated in the Advocates Act, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the no confidence motion against the Chairman was unsustainable as it was brought contrary to the guidelines issued by the Bar Council of India. It also emphasized the need for the Bar Council of India to finalize the guidelines for no confidence motions and for State Bar Councils to frame statutory rules under Section 15 of the Advocates Act.
Issues: The court examined whether there was a prescribed procedure under the Advocates Act, Rules, or Bye-laws of the U.P. State Bar Council for a motion of no confidence against its elected office bearers and whether the resolution of no confidence made in the meeting dated 26.11.2016 was in conformity with the procedure prescribed for convening the meeting of the State Bar Council of U.P. for election of the office bearers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the guidelines issued by the Bar Council of India in a Gazette Notification dated 27.4.2016 were binding on the State Bar Council until statutory rules were framed. It also found that the no confidence motion against the Chairman was unsustainable as it was brought contrary to the guidelines. The court emphasized the need for the Bar Council of India to finalize the guidelines for no confidence motions and for State Bar Councils to frame statutory rules under Section 15 of the Advocates Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition filed by the Chairman was allowed, and the resolution of no confidence motion made in the meeting dated 26.11.2016 was set aside. The writ petition filed by three Members of U.P. State Bar Council was disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to represent their grievance in the matter of guidelines to be framed by Bar Council of India for regulating the procedure to be adopted in the matter of no confidence to be brought against elected office bearers within 6 weeks along with certified copy of the order.
Arun Tandon and Rajul Bhargava, JJ.
1. These are two writ petitions pertaining to the motion of no confidence brought against the Chairman of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and the procedure to be adopted therefore.
2. The first petition has been filed by the Chairman, Sri Anil Pratap Singh questioning the legality of the resolution made by the U.P. State Bar Council dated 26.11.2016 wherein a motion of no confidence is said to have been made against the Chairman and for quashing of the order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the Chairman of Bar Council of India in Revision No. 77 of 2016 as also for quashing of the order dated 24.11.2016 made on the interlocutory application in Revision No. 77 of 2016 by the Chairman of Bar Council of India.
3. The second writ petition has been filed by three members of the U.P. State Bar Council with the prayer that the notification published in Official Gazette dated 27.4.2016 containing the resolution/decision of the Bar Council of India dated 23.1.2016 be quashed. With the further prayer that the said notification may not be enforced and be declared as ultra vires. Lastly it has been prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to frame the rules in consonance with the democratic structure enumerated in Advocates Act, 1961 in the matter of appointment and removal including a motion of no confidence against office bearers of Bar Councils.
4. We have heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, Advocate on behalf of Anil Pratap Singh, the Chairman of U.P. State Bar Council. Sri T.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Nandan, Advocate on behalf of petitioner's of Writ Petition No. 5271 of 2016 and respondent no.3 in the first petition, Sri Rajiv Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Bar Council of India, Sri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate on behalf of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in both these petitions.
5. Before adverting to the legal contentions which have been made on behalf of the contesting parties in these two writ petitions. It would be worthwhile to narrate the relevant facts on record of the present petitions.
6. The U.P. State Bar Council (hereinafter referred to as, "State Bar Council") has been established under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Sri Anil Pratap Singh was elected as the Chairman of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on 24.7.2016 for a period of one year.
7. In respect of appointments in Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh some differences arose between the Chairman and other Members of the State Bar Council. Certain Members of the State Bar Council forwarded a letter dated 28.9.2016 requiring the Secretary of the State Bar Council to requisition a meeting of the State Bar Council for consideration of the various decisions taken by the Chairman.
8. The Secretary is said to have requisitioned a meeting for 5.10.2010 and in the said meeting dated 5.10.2010 of the State Bar Council, various decisions were taken but no-confidence motion was considered nor was put to vote. Some of the Members of the State Bar Council preferred another application dated 5.10.2016 addressed to the Secretary for requisitioning a meeting for consideration of no confidence motion against the Chairman. On the said application an endorsement was made by respondent no.3, the Vice President for the matter being put up for consideration on 23.10.2016 before the general body.
9. The Chairman, U.P. Bar Council coming to know of the said order of the Vice-chairman passed an order dated 25.10.2016 cancelling the order of the Vice-chairman referred to above. This order of the Chairman, U.P. Bar Council dated 25.10.2016 was subjected to challenge before the Bar Council of India by way of revision by the Vice-chairman-respondent No. 3 wherein an interim stay order was granted by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India on the same date.
10. On the strength of the said interim order, a meeting of U.P. Bar Council is said to have taken place on 26.10.2016 where in a motion of no confidence is said to have be
