Back
Stays BCI Interim Authority Order Over Inclusion of Unqualified Former Chairman
In a significant ruling concerning the governance of , the has stayed an order issued by the Chairman of the . The decision halts a directive that had controversially included a former chairman in a newly formed " " for the .
The Dispute Over Interim Governance
Following the declaration of election results for the XIII Bar Council of Kerala on , a legal impasse emerged. While the term of the newly elected members had legally commenced under , the official transition was delayed by pending proceedings before the regarding the of women members.
In the interim, the BCI Chairman issued orders on June 24 and , establishing an authority to handle essential functions like enrolments. The petitioners, including and an elected member of the council, challenged the inclusion of the 4th respondent—the immediate former chairman who had not contested the recent elections—in this governing body.
Arguments and Judicial Scrutiny
Petitioners argued that the inclusion of an unelected individual in a governing authority after the commencement of the elected council's tenure undermined the democratic spirit of the Advocates Act. They contended that neither the BCI nor its Chairman possessed the to bypass the elected body.
The High Court observed that while an interim arrangement was indeed necessary due to the delay in convening the first meeting of the council, the constitution of the authority raised procedural concerns. Specifically, the Court noted that a prior, more logical order issued on June 24—which included the Advocate General and elected members—had been sidelined by the June 30 order without proper justification or supersession.
Key Observations
In his order, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas emphasized the sanctity of statutory adherence:
-
"Such an inclusion of a non-elected member,
, infringes the very essence of the democratic scheme of the
."
-
"The failure to bear in mind [the earlier order] issued on
,
, indicates
."
-
"This Court is of the view that depicting the 4th respondent as Chairman, is not proper in the scheme of the Statute."
Implications of the Ruling
The High Court has directed that the Advocate General, acting in an capacity, shall serve as the Chairman of the alongside the Secretary of the BCK until the council’s first meeting is convened. Furthermore, the Court ordered that enrolment certificates previously printed with the former chairman’s name be discarded and replaced immediately.
This reaffirms the principle that administrative convenience cannot override the statutory and democratic provisions governing professional regulatory bodies. The matter is posted for further consideration on , as stakeholders await the formal convening of the elected Bar Council of Kerala.
