Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Agarwal and Avanindra Kumar Singh, JJ.
High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Bar Council of India New Delhi & Others
Writ Petition No. 7551 of 2016 (Jabalpur);
Decided on 3.5.2024
(1) Advocate -- Amicus Curiae -- appointment -- is for the life of case -- unless he chooses to withdraw himself from matter under intimation to Court. [Para 9]
(2) Advocates Act, 1961 -- Ss. 16 and 2(b) -- Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 -- Rr. 4(g) and 6 -- recognition of separate Bar Association -- all members of petitioner-Association being members of duly recognized High Court Bar Association or District Court Bar Association, are being administered welfare schemes -- no justification for recognizing a parallel body without any averment that their members are not being administered socially beneficial provisions of either Advocates Act or Adhivakta Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam, 1982 -- no pleading to show any ideological basis for formation of another Association -- necessary for such Association to point out that its members are being discriminated and have not been extended benefits of welfare schemes -- R. 4(g) of Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 places specific emphasis on Court-work based association of advocates -- on basis of Court-work, petitioners have no claim to form another Association of Advocates -- R. 6.1 provides that decision of State Bar Council shall be final in this regard -- held -- decision to not grant recognition cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal -- Rr. 4(g), 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of Rules of 2015 read with provisions contained in Advocates Act and Adhiniyam of 1982 reinforce concept of “One Bar at One Place” -- R. 34 of Rules of 2015 will not have any application -- decision of State Bar Council to not grant separate recognition has not affected fundamental freedom of petitioner Association -- order of not granting recognition cannot be set aside. AIR 2017 SC 2967 and AIR 2019 SC 4731 followed. Writ Appeal No. 91 of 2022 decided on 15.3.2022 and 2011 ILR [MP] 1691 relied on. 2012 SCC Online Mad. 2050, AIR 2015 Mad. 213 and (2011) 13 SCC 74 distinguished. (1998) 1 SCC 226 referred to. [Paras 41, 44, 46, 49 to 52 & 59]
(3) Constitution of India -- Art. 226/227 -- scope of judicial review -- necessary to point out that decision is illegal, irrational and suffers from procedural impropriety -- mainly two grounds for judicial review -- reasonableness and rationality -- principle of proportionality can also be invoked where Court is examining whether restrictions on fundamental freedoms imposed by a Statute are within Constitutional limits. (1987) 4 SCC 611 and (1997) 7 SCC 463 followed. [Paras 54 & 55]
¼1½ vf/koäk & U;k;&fe= & fu;qfä & çdj.k ds thoudky ds fy, gksrh gS & tc rd fd og U;k;ky; dks lalwfpr djrs gq, Lo;a dks çdj.k ls vyx djus dk fu.kZ; ugha ysA ¼iSjk 9½
¼2½ vf/koäk vf/kfu;e] 1961 & /kkjk 16 rFkk 2¼[k½ & ckj dkmfUly v‚Q bafM;k lfVZfQdsV ,aM Iysl v‚Q çSfDVl ¼osfjfQds'ku½ fu;e] 2015 & fu- 4¼th½ rFkk 6 & i`Fkd~ vf/koäk la?k dh ekU;rk & ;kph&la?k ds lHkh lnL; lE;d~:is.k ekU;rk çkIr mPp U;k;ky; vf/koäk la?k vFkok ftyk U;k;ky; vfèkoäk la?k ds lnL; gksus ds dkj.k mUgsa dY;k.k ;kstukvksa dk ykHk fn;k tk jgk gS & bl çdFku ds fcuk fd muds lnL;ksa dks vf/koäk vf/kfu;e vFkok vfèkoäk dY;k.k fuf/k vf/kfu;e] 1982 ds lkekftd :i ls Qk;nsçn mica/kksa dk ykHk ugha fn;k tk jgk gS] fdlh lekukarj fudk; dks ekU;rk nsus dk dksbZ U;k;kSfpR; ugha & ,d vU; la?k ds xBu ds fy, lS)kafrd vk/kkj n'kkZus okyk dksbZ vfHkokd~ ugha & ,sls la?k dks ;g minf'kZr djuk vko';d fd mlds lnL;ksa ds lkFk HksnHkko fd;k tk jgk gS vkSj mUgsa dY;k.k ;kstukvksa ds Qk;ns ugha fn, x, gSa & ckj dkmfUly v‚Q bafM;k lfVZfQdsV ,aM Iysl v‚Q çSfDVl ¼osfjfQds'ku½ fu;e] 2015 ds fu- 4¼th½ esa vf/koäkx.k ds U;k;ky;-dk;Z laca/kh la?k ij fofufnZ"V cy fn;k x;k gS & U;k;ky; dk;Z ds vk/kkj ij vf/koäkx.k dk ,d vU; la?k xfBr djus dk ;kphx.k dk dksbZ nkok ugha & fu- 6-1 esa micaf/kr fd bl lacaèk esa jkT; vf/koäk ifj"kn~ dk fofu'p; vafre gksxk & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ekU;rk çnku ugha djus dk fofu'p; euekuk ;k voS/k ugha dgk tk ldrk & lu~ 2015 ds fu;eksa ds fu- 4¼th½] 6-1] 6-2 vkSj 6-3 ds lkFk ifBr vf/koäk vfèkfu;e ,oa lu~ 1982 ds vf/kfu;e esa varfoZ"V mica/k ^^,d LFkku ,d vf/koäk la?k** dh ladYiuk dks lq–ढ+ djrs gSa & lu~ 2015 ds fu;eksa dk fu- 34 ykxw ugha gksxk & i`Fkd~ ekU;rk çnku ugha djus ds jkT; vf/koäk ifj"kn~ ds fofuf'p; ls ;kph la?k dh ewyHkwr Lora=rk çHkkfor ugha gksrh & ekU;rk çnku ugha djus dk fofu'p; vikLr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ,vkbvkj 2017 ,llh 2967 rFkk ,vkbvkj 2019 ,llh 4731 vuqlfjrA fjV vihy Ø- 91 lu~ 2022 fu.khZr fnukad 15-3-2022 rFkk çkCgkr 2011 vkb,yvkj ,eih] 1691 voyafcrA 2012 ,llhlh v‚uykbu eækl 2050] ,vkbvkj 2015 eækl 213 rFkk ¼2011½ 13 ,llhlh 74 çHksfnrA ¼1998½ 1 ,llhlh fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 41] 44] 46] 49 ls 52 ,oa 59½
¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuq- 226@227 & U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu dh O;kfIr & ;g minf'kZr djuk vko';d fd fofu'p; voS/k] rdZjfgr vkSj çfØ;kRed vukSfpR; ls xzLr gS & U;kf;d iqufoZyksdu ds eq[;r% nks vk/kkj gSa & ;qfä;qärk rFkk rkfdZdrk & tgk¡ U;k;ky; ;g ij[k jgk gks fd fdlh dkuwu }kjk ewyHkwr Lora=rkvksa ij vf/kjksfir fucaZ/ku lkafo/kkfud lhekvksa ds Hkhrj gSa ;k ugha] ogk¡ vkuqikfrdrk ds fl)kar dk Hkh vkJ; fy;k tk ldrk gSA ¼1987½ 4 ,llhlh 611 rFkk ¼1997½ 7 ,llhlh 463 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 54 ,oa 55½
ORDER
Agarwal, J. -- 1. This writ petition is filed by the High Court Advocates Bar Association, through its Secretary, challenging the order dated 5.2.2018, whereby, the Bar council of Madhya Pradesh (Recognition Committee) in Recognition Case No.01/2017, where, High Court Advocates Bar Association, Jabalpur, was an applicant, Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association, Jabalpur, who is respondent No.2 herein, was an objector and Democratic Lawyers Forum, Jabalpur, was an intervener therein and is respondent No.4 herein, were also parties and represented through their counsel, took a decision to not to grant separate recognition, to the High Court Advocates Bar Association, Jabalpur. While rejecting the application of the High Court Advocates Bar Association for recognition, the Recognition Committee expressed its anguish to the situation under which some Senior Advocates were compelled to dissociate themselves from the objector Association and to search for separate facility/accommodation. It also directed the State Bar Council to take note of the acts of intolerance and directed to frame appropriate rules to meet said situation.
2. Vide amendment made on 1.11.2023 in compliance of the Court's order dated 1.3.2016, filed by the petitioner High Court Advocates Bar Association, it is added that before the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh the object seeking recognition is for the purposes of availing benefits of the welfare schemes launched by the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council.
3. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, submits that the petitioners are also challenging the resolution Annx.P/5, Annx.P/6 and Annx.P/12, passed from time to time being Resolution No.216/GB/07, dated 13.10.2007 (Annx.P/5), whereby, an application received from the President High Court Advocates Bar Association, Jabalpur, in respect of granting recognition to it was considered and it was resolved that as per norms and policies of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh at a place where the Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh is functioning, only one Bar Association can be given recognition. Under the above circumstances, it noted that it is not possible for the Council to concede the request of the High Court Advocates Bar Association, Jabalpur.
4. Similarly, prior to that, a resolution was passed on 25.11.2005, bearing Resolution No.262/GB/05, whereby, the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, resolved by placing on record that at one place, there shall be only one Bar Association except High Court Bar Association at Gwalior, Indore & Jabalpur, which have been given special recognition. The General body of the Bar council resolved to request Hon'ble the High Court, district Judges in all districts as well as Government of Madhya Pradesh to invite only leaders of recognized Bar Association for any function.
5. It is also resolved that if the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh and the recognized Bar Association are not given due respect and a proper recognition by any of the authorities/institutions, then Bar Council will be constrained to think about it otherwise.
6. Petitioners are also challenging order Annx.P/12, which is the resolution dated 5.2.2018, rejecting application for recognition to the Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates' Bar Association.
7. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, submits that as per the provisions contained in section 2(m), 6(1)(a), 6(1)(dd), section 6(2), section 15(1) and section 15(3), section 28 and sections 49(ag) and (ah) of the Advocates Act, 1961 are pari meteria for deciding this case.
8. Reliance is also placed on the provisions contained in section 2(a), 2(b) and section 16 of the Adhivakta Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1982 for short) and submits that in view of the aforesaid provisions, the order of rejection passed by the State Bar Council is de hors the law. It is pointed out that vide order sheet dated 22.2.2017, a Coordinate
Writ petitions against the Registrar General must be heard by a Division Bench, and relief cannot be granted without proper jurisdiction and due process.
Recognition of Bar Associations by the Bar Council is discretionary and cannot be claimed as an absolute right.
The Court mandates the principles of 'one advocate one vote' and 'one advocate one chamber' for Bar Associations in Delhi to ensure representative elections and proper chamber allocation among practi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of correctly interpreting the specific provisions of the Rules, 2006 in the context of affiliation, and ensuring that the denial of ....
The impugned rule restricting enrolment of advocates engaging in other professions is a reasonable restriction under the Advocates Act and Articles 19(1)(g), 14, and 21 of the Constitution, ensuring ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of statutory immunity under Section 48 of the Advocates Act and the doctrine of merger, which resulted in the plaintiff's lack of c....
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
