Bar Council of India Rules: r.7 – Election held by State Bar Council of M.P. – Notice issued for holding first meeting of newly elected members to conduct elections for various offices and the Committees of the State Bar Council including office of representative member of the State Bar Council in the Bar Council of India (BCI) – On 29.6.2014, in the meeting, a Chairman was elected – After election of Chairman, the meeting was adjourned and some of the members left the place of meeting and thereafter remaining members without any further notice to the members who had left reconvened the meeting and elected ‘SG’ as representative member of the State Bar Council for the BCI – On the same day, i.e. on 29.6.2014, nine members of State Bar Council objected to the said election – On 13.7.2014, thirteen members requested to consider a no-confidence motion against the Chairman so elected – Special meeting was held on 2.8.2014 – The proposed no-confidence motion against the Chairman was withdrawn and the Chairman declared all the elections except his own as void – All other office bearers and members who were elected submitted their resignation except ‘SG’ who refused to resign – Fresh election were held in which ‘PM’ was declared elected as representative member of the Bar Council for the BCI – Election petition filed by ‘SG’ was dismissed by the BCI – Writ petition by State Bar Council and by ‘SG’ – High Court held that election of ‘SG’ and ‘PM’ both were invalid – Appeal by ‘PM’ and BCI – Held: The issue of agenda alongwith the notice is requirement of a valid meeting and it is only in context of adjourned meeting that no fresh agenda was to be issued – Therefore, issuance of an agenda for conducting election on 2.8.2014 was necessary – Further, r.7 of BCI Rules required notice by the Secretary of the State Council fixing a date for the election of the member to the Council – High Court was, thus, right in its view that election of ‘PM’ on 2.8.2014 as member of the BCI was not a valid election – Both the elections dated 29.6.2014 and 2.8.2014 to elect a member in the BCI having been held to be invalid, High Court was right in issuing directions for conducting a fresh election to elect a member in the BCI – In view of the dismissal of the appeals, the election already conducted on 12.8.2018 be given effect to by all concerned – Advocates Act, 1961 – s.49.
Writ jurisdiction: Scope of – Held: The findings of the fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings – Bar Council of India Rules.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 A conjoint reading of Rule 2, 3 and 7 of Chapter I of Part II of the Bar Council of India Rules indicated that for holding election of a member of Bar Council of India to be elected by State Bar Council, notice and agenda has to be issued by the Secretary of the State Bar Council, which is a statutory requirement. There is no issue between the parties regarding the fact that agenda dated 09.06.2014 was issued for the meeting of the members of the State Bar Council on 29.06.2014 including the agenda for electing a member from the State Bar Council to the Bar Council of India. A perusal of the proceeding indicated that all 25 elected members and Advocate General, who was Exofficio member was present and meeting started at 11.00 am and by 12.00 noon, the election of the Chairman was completed. The Minutes record that for greeting the newly elected Chairman and to see-off Advocate General, the proceeding of the meeting were stayed/adjourned and thereafter again the meeting started in presence of members for election of rest of the office bearers and members of the Committees. [Paras 17, 18] [1080-B-D]
1.2 The proceeding dated 29.06.2014 also contained a resolution by which name of ‘SG’ was proposed and unanimously approved as representative of the State Bar Council to the Bar Council of India. On 29.06.2014 itself, 9 members submitted a letter addressed to Chairman of the State Bar Council that no information of holding of adjourned meeting after 2.00 pm was received by them, hence adjourned meeting be called for completing the rest of the elections. To the same effect was another letter dated 13.07.2014 by 13 members of the Bar Council of State. Another letter dated 13.07.2014, signed by 13 members of the State Bar Council was submitted to the State Bar Council requesting for convening a meeting under Rule 122A for considering no-confidence motion against the Chairman of the State Bar Council. The State Bar Council issued notice dated 16.07.2014 to all the members of the State Bar Council referring to the letters received from members where election proceeding of Vice-Chairman, Treasurer and representative to the Bar Council of India are being disputed and no-confidence motion was presented against the Chairman. The officiating Secretary convened special meeting dated 02.08.2014 for disposal of these letters received from the members of the State Bar Council. [Para 19] [1080-G-H; 1081-A-C]
2.1 Notice dated 16.07.2014 as well as dated 19.07.2014 clearly indicated that special meeting was convened for taking a decision on the letters received from members of the Council. Notice dated 19.07.2014 categorically mentions “in the special meeting both the letters are to be decided”. Letters dated 29.06.2014 and 13.07.2014 were referred in the notice where following two subjects were mentioned:- Request for convening a meeting for conducting elections of the rest of the office bearers and members; Under Rule 122-A, considering the motion of no confidence given by 13 members of the Bar Council against the Chairman. Notice dated 16.07.2014 clearly indicated that it did not contain any agenda for the meeting. The notice convening the meeting only referred to consideration of letters received from the members. [Paras 21, 22] [1080-G-H; 1081-A-C] Law and Practices of Meetings, Fourteenth Edition by Shackleton – referred to
2.2 Notices dated 16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014 were issued not for convening any adjourned meeting rather special meeting was convened to consider two set of letters given by members of the Council requesting for convening a meeting for holding elections of office bearers and the members of different Committees including representative to Bar Council of India and for considering no confidence motion against the Chairman of the State Bar Council. In notice dated 16.07.2014 as well as notice dated 19.07.2014, the subject of special meeting was thus for disposal of letters received by the members of the Council. The minutes of proceeding dated 29.06.2014 has recorded and signed by Chairman containing the election of not only the Chairman rather election of other office bearers and different representatives, which is clear from the proceedings brought on the record by Bar Council of India itself. It is a well established principle that minutes of the proceeding signed by the Chairman are prima facie evidence of proceeding and decisions recorded therein are deemed to be valid until contrary is proved. Thus, the letters issued by the members on 29.06.2014 and 13.07.2014 raised a dispute containing allegations disputing minutes of the proceeding of the meeting dated 29.06.2014. Thus, it was a disputed matter as to what actually happened on 29.06.2014, i.e. as to whether the election of other office bearers and representatives were validly completed on 29.06.2014 or after the election of the Chairman, the meeting was adjourned. This dispute was to be resolved in the special meeting dated 02.08.2014, which was clearly indicated by notice dated 16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014. The issue of agenda alongwith the notice is requirement of a valid meeting and it is only in context of adjourned meeting that no fresh agenda need to be issued. The notices dated 16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014 having not contained any agenda and the meeting also not being described as adjourned meeting, issuance of agenda for the meeting was necessary. [Paras 24, 25] [1084-D-G; 1085-E-G]
3. No election could have been conducted on 02.08.2014 for electing member to the Bar Council of India from the State Bar Council. Further, the election of the member to the Bar Council of India is statutorily regulated by Bar Council of India Rules and Rule 7 require notice by the Secretary of the State Council fixing a date for the election of the member to the Council. Notices dated 16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014 cannot be read as notice as required under Rule 7 for holding election of a member to the Bar Council of India from the State Bar Council, hence, the conduct of election of a member as a representative from State Bar Council to Bar Council of India in the meeting dated 02.08.2014 cannot be said to be in conformity with Rule 7 of Bar Council of India Rules. The High Court was, thus, clearly right in its view that election of ‘PM’ on 02.08.2014 as member of the Bar Council of India was not a valid election. Both the elections dated 29.06.2014 and 02.08.2014 to elect a member in the Bar Council of India having been held to be invalid, the High Court was right in issuing directions for conducting a fresh election to elect a member in the Bar Council of India, which was necessary and just. [Para 26] [1086-A-E]
Waryam Singh and another v. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215; Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others AIR 1964 SC 477; K. Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda and others, AIR 1966 SCC 330; P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology, AIR 1981 SC 789; V.S. Krishnan and others v. Westfort Hi-tech Hospital Ltd. and Others (2008) 3 SCC 363 – held inapplicable
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.