Back
1995 Supreme(MP) 803
U Bhat, S Dubey
Tamaskar Tandon
vs
State Bar Council Of Madhya ...
Decided on : 15 September, 1995
The absence of reservation of seats in the Election Rules did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the Parliament/Legislature had not made any provision for reservation in the Act or Rules.
Headnote:
ELECTION RULES - ADVOCATES ACT, 1961 - SECTION 15(2)(A) AND (D) - STATE BAR COUNCIL OF MADHYA PRADESH ELECTION RULES, 1968 - VALIDITY - RESERVATION OF SEATS - DISCRIMINATION - ELECTION TRIBUNAL - CONSTITUTION - AMENDMENT IN ELECTORAL ROLL - INCLUSION OF ADVOCATES WHO ARE NO MORE IN THIS WORLD - DISQUALIFICATION OF CANDIDATE - APPOINTMENT OF SECRETARY OF THE BAR COUNCIL AS RETURNING OFFICER - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the vires of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Election Rules, 1968, framed under Section 15(2)(a) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution due to the absence of reservation of seats for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, and Other Backward Classes, including women. The petitioner also challenged the provision restricting the number of elected candidates with less than 10 years' standing, the correctness of the Electoral Roll, the constitution of the Election Tribunal, the inclusion of deceased Advocates in the Electoral Roll, the candidature of respondent No. 3 due to his conviction for contempt of Court, and the appointment of the Secretary of the State Bar Council as the Returning Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the absence of reservation of seats in the Election Rules did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the Parliament/Legislature had not made any provision for reservation in the Act or Rules. The court also upheld the classification of candidates based on their standing at the Bar, finding it reasonable and not discriminatory. The court further held that the Election Tribunal had been duly constituted and that any election disputes could be raised before it. The court found no illegality in the amendment of the Electoral Roll to rectify typographical errors and assured that deceased Advocates would not be counted in the ballots. The court also held that respondent No. 3 was not disqualified to contest the election as the disqualification period had elapsed since his conviction. Finally, the court held that the appointment of the Secretary of the Bar Council as the Returning Officer was in accordance with the statutory provision.
Issues: 1. Whether the absence of reservation of seats in the Election Rules violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the classification of candidates based on their standing at the Bar was discriminatory? 3. Whether the Election Tribunal had been duly constituted? 4. Whether the amendment of the Electoral Roll to rectify typographical errors was illegal? 5. Whether the inclusion of deceased Advocates in the Electoral Roll vitiated the election process? 6. Whether respondent No. 3 was disqualified to contest the election due to his conviction for contempt of Court? 7. Whether the appointment of the Secretary of the Bar Council as the Returning Officer was in accordance with the statutory provision?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the absence of reservation of seats in the Election Rules did not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the Parliament/Legislature had not made any provision for reservation in the Act or Rules. The court also upheld the classification of candidates based on their standing at the Bar, finding it reasonable and not discriminatory. 2. The court further held that the Election Tribunal had been duly constituted and that any election disputes could be raised before it. 3. The court found no illegality in the amendment of the Electoral Roll to rectify typographical errors and assured that deceased Advocates would not be counted in the ballots. 4. The court also held that respondent No. 3 was not disqualified to contest the election as the disqualification period had elapsed since his conviction. 5. Finally, the court held that the appointment of the Secretary of the Bar Council as the Returning Officer was in accordance with the statutory provision.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
1. By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the vires of the Rules known as State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Election Rules, 1968 (for short 'the Election Rules') (Annexure P-1) framed under Section 15(2)(a) and (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and approved by the Bar Council of India. The petitioner has also challenged the, notification No. SBC/M.P./Election/Cir. No. 04/95 dated 17-7-1995 and also the notification No. SBC.M.P./Errata/(Elect-Roll)/Election/95/256 dated 26-6-1995 (Annexure P-6) and also the candidature of respondent No. 3.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are these. The petitioner who is on State Roll of Advocates prepared and maintained by Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council is practising at Durg. He avers that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and socially and economically belongs to the " weaker section of the society. The petitioner was desirous of contesting the election; but under the Election Rules no seats are reserved for the candidates of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes including women. Therefore, the Rules are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and are against the judgment of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 477, and also of Report of Mandal Commission.
The petitioner also challenges the proviso (1) of Rule 25 of the Election Rules which lays down that no candidate who has been an Advocate on the State Roll for at least 10 years shall be elected if 12 candidates of less than 10 years' standing have already been declared elected, while in case of Advocates who have put in more than 10 years standing, a provision for election of 13 candidates has been made which is discriminatory. The petitioner has also challenged the correctness of the Electoral Roll as defined in Rule 2(j) of the Election Rules which means and includes the roll containing the names of Advocates prepared in accordance with the Rules of the Bar Council of India in Part III, Chapter I, the term 'voter' in Rule 2(t) means a person whose name is included in the Electoral Roll. In the Electoral Roll, the names of the Advocates .have been included as voters from Raipur and Durg who are no more in this world. Petitioner also challenges Annexure P-6, Errata - on the ground that once Final Electoral Roll 1995 (Annexure P-3) was published, no amendment in that could have been made vide Annexure P-6. It is also alleged that under Rule 31 of the Election Rules no Election Tribunal has been constituted by the State Bar Council for deciding the validity of the election disputes; therefore, candidature of respondent No. 3 who is on State Roll, cannot be challenged as he is disqualified because of his conviction in Misc. Cr. Case No. 641/92 for committing contempt of Court under Section 2(c)(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for demanding certain amount from the client in the name of a Judge of this Court, and, hence, was sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month vide judgment dated 30-11-1992. Respondent No. 3 preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the said judgment which was dismissed. Last grievance of the petitioner is that the Secretary of the State Bar Council has been appointed Returning Officer, which is illegal.
3. After hearing Shri R. N. Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner and Shri V. K. Tankha, counsel for the State Bar Council, Madhya Pradesh, we are of the opinion that none of the contentions have any merit, which we shall deal one by one.
4. Re. Reservation of Seats -- A careful reading of the Act and Rules reveal that no provision has been made for the reservation of the categories of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Backward Classes, and also for woman ca
