Babu Varghese v. Bar Council of Kerala — 1997 DIGILAW 483 (KER)

JUDGMENT 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sankarasubban, J.-- The Original Petition and the writ appeal are filed challenging the election conducted to the Bar Council of Kerala in March 1997. Hence they are heard and disposed of together. First we shall deal with O. P. No. 8524 of 1997. 2. The Original Petition has been filed by six Advocates who are enrolled by the Bar Council of the State of Kerala. They are practising lawyers. In this writ petition, they have challenged the election to the Bar Council of Kerala held in March - April, 1997. 3. The notification for election under Ext. P 1 was issued on 1st February 1997. The first petitioner contested the election, but was unsuccessful, while petitioners 2 to 6 claimed that they were denied their right to vote in the election. 4. The term of the existing State Bar Council expired on 27th January 1997. On 1st February 1997, the notification was issued for election to the State Bar Council. The last date for receiving nomination was 26th February 1997. The last date for withdrawal of nomination was 7th March 1997. The polling was to take place between 26th March 1997 and 11th April 1997. The date fixed for counting was 15th April 1997 from 9.30 a.m. onwards. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the election of respondents 5 to 29 to the State Bar Council held during March 1997 and declared as per Ext. P12(d) was illegal and void; and for a direction to the State Bar Council to prepare an accurate list of voters as envisaged according to the rules and, thereafter conduct a fresh election in accordance with law, and for a further declaration that R.34(5) of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979 is arbitrary, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void. The petitioners raised several contentions challenging the validity of the election, starting from (1) the competency of the existing State Bar Council to issue the notification, (2) illegality in the preparation of the electoral roll, (3) omission of large number of persons from the electoral roll, (4) doubling of names to, (5) inconsistency in the printing of ballot papers and proper upkeep of the ballot papers and voting. 5. According to the petitioners, the term of the State Bar Council expired on 27th January 1997. 5. According to the petitioners, the term of the State Bar Council expired on 27th January 1997. It was only by order dated 12th February 1997 that the Bar Council of India extended the term for six months in exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to S.8 of the Advocates' Act. According to the petitioners, the extension was granted 12 days after the expiry. Thus, on the date on which Ext. P 1 notification was issued, there was no legal statutory council to issue the notification. This, according to the petitioners, made the entire process void. It was further contended that the notification was not published in the Government Gazette in accordance with R.3 of Part IX of the Bar Council of India Rules. As regards the illegality in the preparation of electoral roll, it was pointed out. 6. Under S.17 of the Advocates' Act, each State Bar Council has to prepare and maintain a roll of Advocates containing the names and addresses of all persons who are admitted to be Advocates on the roll of the State Bar Council. According to the petitioners, there are 21,000 Advocates enrolled as per the State Roll. But, in the published electoral roll only 16,253 names were shown. R.1 to 5 of the Bar Council of India Rules deal with the preparation of electoral roll. According to R.1, every Advocate, whose name appears in the electoral roll of the State Bar Council shall be entitled to vote in the election. So long as a person's name is not removed under R.2, he is entitled to vote. The electoral roll is to contain the list of voters prepared in accordance with the Rules of Bar Council of India. Under R.8 of Chap.1 of Part II of the Bar Council of India Rules, the electoral roll of the State Council shall contain: (i) serial number, (ii) number of the State Roll, (iii) Name of Advocates as on the roll and (iv) address of the Advocate. But, in the electoral roll published by the Bar Council, there is conformity only with regard to the first three items. The 4th item, as regards the address of the Advocate, was not shown in the electoral roll. The meaning of the word 'address' is, a description of a home, office etc. for sending letters. But, in the electoral roll published by the Bar Council, there is conformity only with regard to the first three items. The 4th item, as regards the address of the Advocate, was not shown in the electoral roll. The meaning of the word 'address' is, a description of a home, office etc. for sending letters. The purpose is to ensure the identity of the voter and to prevent impersonation. The omission to give address of the Advocates caused doubts regarding the legality of the electoral roll and holding of an election without a proper electoral roll was not valid. 7. Complaint was made in regard to the publication of the voters list also. According to the petitioners, the voters list was not published and hence the first petitioner was not able to contact sufficient number of voters to canvass for his success. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that R.4(1) of the Bar Council of India Rules was also violated. According to him, the electoral roll was published without recourse to R.4(1) of the Bar Council of India Rules. R.4(1) of the Bar Council of India Rules may be noticed: "In preparing the Electoral Roll, unless the State Bar Council concerned is already maintaining a list of Advocates, who are entitled to be voters in terms of R.2 of these rules, at least 150 days before the date of election, shall publish notice issued by the Secretary of the State Bar Council concerned in prescribed form in the Official Gazette and in two or more local newspapers one English and the other of local language, as may be decided by the State Bar Council asking each of the Advocates on the Roll of the concerned State Bar Council to intimate the State Bar Council within the time to be specified in the said notice or within such extended time as may be given or allowed by the State Bar Council for reasons to be recorded, as to whether he has incurred any disqualification mentioned in R.2 of these rules." (R.2 has to be quoted in the notice) According to the petitioners, the State Bar Council was not maintaining an Electoral Roll. The State Bar Council ought to have issued notice to the Advocates seeking information as to whether they have incurred any disqualification for being enrolled as a voter. 8. The State Bar Council ought to have issued notice to the Advocates seeking information as to whether they have incurred any disqualification for being enrolled as a voter. 8. It was pointed out that the Kerala Bar Council at its meeting held on 5th May 1996 had passed a resolution No. 64/96 to treat the State Roll of Advocates maintained by the Bar Council as the electoral roll since the same was in conformity with R.2. According to the petitioners, this resolution was illegal and invalid. It was submitted that the preliminary voters list and the final voters list were not published. The details of certain omissions in the electoral roll and double entries were also pointed out. The validity of S.34(4) as regards setting up a Tribunal for the purpose of election was also challenged. 9. The Bar Council of Kerala filed its counter affidavit through the Secretary. At the outset, the State Bar Council questioned the maintainability of the writ petition. According to it, an election Tribunal is constituted under the Rules and the petitioners ought to have approached the Tribunal for redressal of their grievances if any. Each and every contention raised by the petitioners has been categorically dealt with. According to them, the Bar Council of Kerala had already been maintaining a list of Advocates who are entitled to be voters in terms of R.2, Chap.1, Part III. The preliminary electoral roll had been published. The petitioner did not file any objection. Thereafter, the final electoral roll was published. The electoral roll was prepared and published according to the Rules. If mistakes would have been pointed out, they could have been rectified. In view of the fact that the State Bar Council had already been maintaining an electoral roll, it was not necessary to issue a fresh intimation to the members. It was further contended that even if there was any defect in the voters list, that would not materially affect the result of the election. According to the learned Advocate appearing for the Bar Council, the contents mentioned in the electoral roll were adequate to meet the needs of the election. The mistakes as pointed out in the electoral roll were rectified and even if there existed any mistake and which were not pointed out by the petitioners at the time when it was published, it would not vitiate the election. The mistakes as pointed out in the electoral roll were rectified and even if there existed any mistake and which were not pointed out by the petitioners at the time when it was published, it would not vitiate the election. So far as individual complaints regarding the non inclusion or illegal inclusion are concerned, it was submitted that it was not a matter to be considered in. a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. Referring to the Bar Council Rules, it was pointed out that no election will be set aside on the mere ground of irregularity in the electoral roll unless it materially affected the result of the election. The election was conducted in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Rules. The allegations regarding the proper upkeep of the ballot papers were denied. It was submitted that there was no illegality or irregularity in the conduct of the election. 10. Before we deal with the rival contentions raised by the parties, we may point out that our jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution is limited to find out whether any rules have been violated in the preparation of the electoral rolls or in the conduct of the election. Under the Bar Council of India Rules and the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, election can be challenged before the Tribunal constituted for that purpose. R.11 of the Bar Council of India Rules is relevant to be noticed: "No election shall be called in question for any non compliance of the provisions of the Act or of any rules made thereunder unless the results of the election in so far as it concerns a returned candidate or candidates have been materially affected." As per R.34(8) of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, no petition shall lie on the ground that a nomination paper was wrongly rejected or the name of any voter was wrongly included or omitted from the electoral roll or on the ground of any error or irregularity which is not of a substantial character. 11. The learned Senior Counsel Sri V. K. Beeran, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the entire election was invalid because, according to him, the provisions of R.4 of the Bar Council of India Election Rules was not complied with. 11. The learned Senior Counsel Sri V. K. Beeran, appearing for the petitioners, contended that the entire election was invalid because, according to him, the provisions of R.4 of the Bar Council of India Election Rules was not complied with. Under R.1 of Part III of Chap.1 of the Bar Council of India Rules, every Advocate whose name is on the electoral roll of the State Council shall be entitled to vote at an election. R.2 stipulates that the name of an Advocate appearing in the State Roll shall not be on the electoral rolls on certain conditions. R.3 states that the name of every Advocate entered in the State Roll shall be entered in the electoral roll of the State Council, subject to the provisions of the rule. R.4 states: "4. (1) In preparing the Electoral Roll, unless the State Bar Council concerned is already maintaining a list of advocates who are entitled to be voters in terms of R.2 of these Rules at least 150 days before the date of election, shall publish notice issued by the Secretary of the State Bar Council concerned in prescribed form in the Official Gazette and in two or more local newspapers one English and the other of local language as may be decided by the State Bar Council, asking each of the Advocates on the Roll of the concerned State Bar Council to intimate the State Bar Council within the time to be specified in the said notice or within such extended time as may be given/allowed by the State Bar Council for reasons to be recorded, as to whether he has incurred any disqualification mentioned in R.2 of these Rules and quote R.2 of these Rules in the said Notice. (2) A preliminary electoral roll containing the names of all Advocates whose names are required to be included under these rules shall be put up on the notice board of the State Council within 120 clear days before the expiry of the term of the members of the said State Council necessitating the election (and relevant portion thereof shall be sent to such Bar Associations as the Secretary considers fit). Provided that the Bar Councils whose term of office has already expired or shall expire within 120 days from the date of commencement of these rules shall as far as possible, publish the electoral roll forthwith and fix the elections for a date after not less than 120 clear days from the date of publication of the electoral rolls. (3) Before final publication of the electoral roll, a State Bar Council may, if satisfied, on an application made by any particular Advocates giving sufficient reasons, allow his name to be included in the Electoral Roll in question, and on such inclusion Advocate concerned shall be entitled to take part in the election." According to the learned counsel, the State Bar Council has to prepare the electoral roll every year and before preparing the new electoral roll, notice has to be issued to the members of the roll as to whether any person has incurred disqualification as mentioned in R.2. He further contended that no electoral roll was being maintained by the State Bar Council. 12. The learned counsel appearing for the State Bar Council submitted that the interpretation given by the counsel for the petitioners is not correct. According to him, if the State Bar Council is maintaining a list of Advocates who are entitled to be voter's in terms of the rules, then it is not necessary to issue a notice with regard to the incurring of the disqualification. He further submitted that it is not necessary that the electoral roll should be revised every year. Once an electoral roll is prepared, it will contain the names of only those persons who are entitled to vote and will not contain the names of any disqualified persons. At the time of every election, the electoral roll is published and after hearing the objections of the members, the roll is revised. It was further submitted that as per the resolution of the State Bar Council dated 5th May 1996, it was decided to treat the state roll of the Advocates maintained by the Bar Council as the electoral roll since it conformed to R.2. There was nothing wrong in this. In as much as an electoral roll was being maintained by the State Bar Council, it was not necessary to comply with that portion of R.4 requiring the issue of a notice for ascertaining whether any person has incurred any disqualification. There was nothing wrong in this. In as much as an electoral roll was being maintained by the State Bar Council, it was not necessary to comply with that portion of R.4 requiring the issue of a notice for ascertaining whether any person has incurred any disqualification. 13. We find force in the argument of the learned Advocate appearing for the State Bar Council. According to rule, if there is no electoral roll, then the State Bar Council has to prepare an electoral roll. In preparing the electoral roll, the state roll has to be kept in mind. As indicated in R.2, anybody who has incurred disqualification will not be entitled to vote. In order to ascertain whether any person has incurred any disqualification, a notice mentioned in R.4 is necessitated. But, since there was already an existing electoral roll maintained by the State Bar Council, it was not necessary to publish any notice. This is because when the electoral roll is prepared, the requirement of the latter part of R.4 would have been complied with. The State Bar council was already maintaining an electoral roll and, therefore, it was not necessary to issue individual notice. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit filed by the State Bar Council, it has been clearly stated that the Bar Council of Kerala has already been maintaining a list of Advocates who are entitled to be voters in terms of R.2 in Chap.1, Part III of the Bar Council of India Rules. In such circumstances, we are not able to accept the argument put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the electoral roll did not conform to R.4. 14. Another important point urged was that the. electoral roll was not in accordance with R.7 of Chap.1, Part III of the Bar Council of India Rules. According to that rule, the electoral roll should contain the serial number, number on the State Roll, name of Advocates as on the roll and address of the Advocate. It was admitted by the Bar Council that in so far as the address of the Advocate was concerned, the house address was not given. According to the petitioners the house address ought to have been given and since that was not given, there was violation of R.7 of the Rules, But the petitioners have not been able to explain how this has prejudiced them. According to the petitioners the house address ought to have been given and since that was not given, there was violation of R.7 of the Rules, But the petitioners have not been able to explain how this has prejudiced them. The address need not necessarily be the residential address. It is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as the name of the place to which letters, etc., for a person are directed or a place where one may be found. What is meant is that the person should be identified. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Bar Council, it was stated that the place where the Advocate practises is certainly a definite place. The Advocate practises at a particular centre in a particular court or courts. A communication can reach him if the name of the place with description is mentioned. There is no difficulty to locate an Advocate at a particular station. The mere fact that the residential address was not given does not make the electoral roll invalid. 15. As already stated, the preliminary and final voters list had been published. The substance of the voters list was sent to different centres. The mere fact that a person's name does not appear in the list cannot lead to the conclusion that the entire list was illegal. 16. Another contention raised was with regard to the validity of Ext. P 1 notification. According to the petitioners, Ext. P 1 notification was issued on 1st February 1997. The term of the State Bar Council expired on 27th January 1997. The Bar Council of India extended the term for a period of six months by order dated 12th February 1997 in exercise of its powers under the proviso to S.8 of the Advocates Act. According to the petitioners, the extension was granted in terms of Resolution dated 9th February 1997. The petitioners contended that extension was granted 12 days after the expiry of the term and, therefore, the functioning of the Bar Council of Kerala after 27th January 1997 was not valid and hence all decisions made by it during the period were illegal and without any authority. 17. The State Bar Council has filed C.M.P. No. 25166 of 1997 highlighting the correspondence between the State Bar Council and the Central Bar Council regarding the extension of the term. 17. The State Bar Council has filed C.M.P. No. 25166 of 1997 highlighting the correspondence between the State Bar Council and the Central Bar Council regarding the extension of the term. By letter dated 31st December 1996, the Chairman of the State Bat Council had intimated the Secretary of the Bar Council of India that the term of the Bar Council was expiring on 27th January 1997 and the council decided to conduct the election in the third week of March, 1997. Since no reply was received to the letter dated 31st December 1996, another letter was sent on 13th January 1997 for extension of the term. By letter dated 22nd September 1997, the Secretary of the Bar Council of India informed the Secretary of the State Bar Council that the resolution for extension of the term of the State Council was circulated under R.6, Chap.2, Part II of the Bar Council of India Rules on 1.3th January 1997 itself. The same was placed before the Bar Council of India at its meeting held on 8th February 1.997. The respondents have also produced a letter, Ext. R1(g), stating that the resolution for extension of the term of the council was circulated on 13th January 1997 to the members of the Bar Council of India, and there was no objection from any member to the Resolution. On the basis of this correspondence, it was argued by the learned counsel for the State Bar Council that extension was granted by the Bar Council on 13th January 1997 which was well before the expiry of the term of the Bar Council. 18. In order to appreciate the contentions raised, R.6, Chap.2, Part II of the Bar Council of India Rules is relevant to be noticed: "If urgent action by the Council or by any Committee of the Council other than a Disciplinary Committee becomes necessary the Chairman of the Council or of such Committee as the case may be may permit the business to be transacted by circulation of papers to the members of the Council or the Committee as the case may be. The action proposes to be taken shall not be taken unless agreed to by a majority of the members of the Council or the Committee as the case may be. The action so taken shall be forthwith intimated to all the members of the Council or the Committee concerned. The action proposes to be taken shall not be taken unless agreed to by a majority of the members of the Council or the Committee as the case may be. The action so taken shall be forthwith intimated to all the members of the Council or the Committee concerned. The papers shall be placed before the next meeting of the Council or the Committee concerned for confirmation." It obviously establishes that in case of necessity, resolution can be passed by circulation and the action can be taken if it is agreed upon by the majority of the members of the council or the committee. From Ext. R1(g) it is clear that the resolution for extension of the term of the Bar Council of Kerala was circulated among the members on 13th January 1.997 and there was no objection by any member to the resolution. On 8th February 1997, the minutes of the proceedings of 13th January 1997 was approved. Thus going by Ext. R1(g) it has to be concluded that the Resolution extending the term of the Bar Council was passed before the expiry of the term. Hence, there was no illegality in Ext. P 1 notification. 19. The other contention as regards the constitutional validity of R.34 of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules is equally without any force. Under this rule, any voter may contest the validity of the election of a candidate declared to have been elected to the Bar Council by filing a petition. R.34(4) of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules states: '' 34. Disputes as to the validity of elections: (4) All disputes arising under the above sub-rule shall be decided by a tribunal to be known as an Election Tribunal comprising 3 Advocates whose names are on the State Roll and who are not of less than ten years' standing." According to the petitioners, the Tribunal was constituted by three Advocates who are also nominated by the members of the Bar Council. Hence they may not be impartial. We do not find any substance in this contention. The Advocates are responsible persons practising the noble profession of law. Merely because they were nominated by an existing Bar Council, their decision in a dispute will not per se be tainted with partiality. Hence they may not be impartial. We do not find any substance in this contention. The Advocates are responsible persons practising the noble profession of law. Merely because they were nominated by an existing Bar Council, their decision in a dispute will not per se be tainted with partiality. Further in a case of an election dispute if any doubt arises regarding the credibility of any person, that can be brought to the notice of the Council which may substitute another person in place of a person against whom objection is raised. Thus, the rule as such, cannot be said to be arbitrary or unconstitutional. The contention is, therefore, rejected. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bar Council of Delhi v. Surjeet Singh ( AIR 1980 SC 1612 ). In the said case, the Supreme Court was considering the validity of the proviso to R.3(j) of the Bar Council of Delhi Election Rules. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioners heavily relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bar Council of Delhi v. Surjeet Singh ( AIR 1980 SC 1612 ). In the said case, the Supreme Court was considering the validity of the proviso to R.3(j) of the Bar Council of Delhi Election Rules. The proviso to R.3(j) stated: "Provided that the Electoral Roll shall not include the name of such Advocate who fails to file in the Office of the Bar Council, on or before such date (not being earlier than 30 days of the date of notification) as may be notified by the Bar Council in such manner as may be considered proper by it from time to time, or within 45 days of the putting up of the preliminary Electoral Roll under R.4(1) of Chap.1 of Part III of the Bar Council of India Rules, a declaration containing the name, address and number of the Advocate on the State Roll and to the effect that: (a) He is an Advocate ordinarily practising in the Union Territory of Delhi and that his principal place of practice is within Union Territory of Delhi; (b) He is not an undischarged insolvent; (c) He has never been convicted by any court for an offence involving moral turpitude; or A period of two years has elapsed since his release after being convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude; (In case of conviction particulars of such conviction should be given) (d) He is not in full time service of business or in any such part time business or other vocation as is not permitted in the case of practising Advocates by the rules of the Bar Council; and (e) He has not been suspended from practice and on the failure to file the declaration or on filing of incomplete or incorrect declaration in any respect, it shall be presumed that the name of such. Advocate is not to be entered on the Electoral Roll in accordance with R.3 of Chap.1 of Part III of the Bar Council of India Rules." The Supreme Court held that the proviso to R.3(j) was invalid and further stated: "The view that merely because the whole election has been challenged by a writ petition, the petition would be maintainable in spite of there being an alternative remedy being available, so widely put, may not be quite correct and especially after the recent amendment of Art.226 of the Constitution. If the alternative remedy fully covers the challenge to the election then that remedy and that remedy alone must be resorted to even though it involves the challenge of the election of all the successful candidates. But if the nature and ground of the challenge of the whole election are such that the alternative remedy is no remedy in the eye of law to cover the challenge or, in any event, is not adequate and efficacious remedy, then the remedy of writ petition to challenge the whole election is Still available. The illegal preparation of the electoral roll by the Delhi Bar Council on the basis of the invalid proviso to R.3(j) goes to the very rest of the matter and no election held on the basis of such an infirmity can be upheld. There is no question of the result being materially affected in such a case." In these circumstances, Art.226 was invoked. This decision is of no assistance to the petitioners in their challenge to the election on the ground of irregularity in the electoral rolls or the irregularities in the conduct of the election or counting of the votes. So long as the rules are valid, the petitioners have to approach the Tribunal constituted under R.34. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to the decisions of this Court reported in 1983 KLT 1038 (Govindan v. Dy. Registrar of Cooperative Societies) and AIR 1972 Ker. 5 (FB) (A. K. Nair v. Election Commissioner of India) where this court interfered with the process of election. In those cases it was found that the illegality went to the root of the matter and hence the election was declared as contrary to law. If an election is conducted without an electoral roll, probably the petitioners will be justified in approaching this court requesting that the election may be set aside. In those cases it was found that the illegality went to the root of the matter and hence the election was declared as contrary to law. If an election is conducted without an electoral roll, probably the petitioners will be justified in approaching this court requesting that the election may be set aside. But that is not the case here. Here the electoral roll was prepared. A preliminary roll was published, and thereafter it was finalised. It is not pointed out that the provisions regarding the conduct of the election or counting of the ballot papers are illegal or invalid. What is contended is that there are some violations in the regulations. But that is a matter which could be taken up in an election dispute. In an election dispute the court will not interfere with an election unless it could be established that the alleged irregularity or illegality has materially affected the result of the election. It is clear from the rules that a person in the State roll need not be a member in the electoral roll. Petitioners have not been able to prove that the 4,000 and odd persons in the State rolls were excluded from the voters list in spite of the fact that they were entitled to vote. Further, it is a well established principle that the right to vote is a statutory right and not a common law right. "The right to vote is subject to the limitations imposed by the statute which can be exercised only in the manner provided by the statute; and the challenge to any provision in the statute prescribing the nature of right to elect Cannot be made with reference to a fundamental right in the Constitution. The very basis of challenge to the validity of sub-s.(5) of S.62 of the Act is, therefore, not available to the petitioner". These are the observations of the learned Chief Justice J. S. Verma in the decision reported in 1997 (6) SCC 1 (Anukul Chandra Pradhan v, Union of India). 21. There is no fundamental right entitling a person to vote. The right flows from the statute. When the statute says that no election can be set aside merely on the ground of non compliance of the provisions, unless it has substantially affected the results of the election, the person does not get a right higher than that created by the statute. The right flows from the statute. When the statute says that no election can be set aside merely on the ground of non compliance of the provisions, unless it has substantially affected the results of the election, the person does not get a right higher than that created by the statute. Hence we are of the view that the contention regarding the non inclusion of names or any other malpractice in the election cannot be gone into especially when it has not been shown that the results of the election have been materially affected by such malpractice or illegality. 22. In the writ appeal, the main point raised was with regard to the validity of the electoral roll. The same contentions which were urged by the petitioners in O. P. No. 8524 of 1997 were reiterated by the learned counsel for the appellant. We have already considered the same while dealing with the Original Petition. We reject the same for the reasons mentioned in the O. P. 23. The appellant then contended that S.49(1)(a) of the Advocates Act, 1961 was not valid. S.49(1)(a) reads as follows: "General power of the Bar Council of India to makes rules,-- (1) The Bar Council of India may make rules for discharging its functions under this Act, and, in particular, such rules may prescribe -- (a) the conditions subject to which an Advocate may be entitled, to vote at an election to the State Bar Council including the qualifications or disqualifications of voters, and the manner in which an electoral roll of voters may be prepared and revised by a State Bar Council". The sub-section enables the Bar Council of India to prescribe rules regarding the qualification, disqualification and other conditions subject to which the Advocate may be entitled to vote. It also enables the Bar Council of India to prescribe rules regarding the manner in which an electoral roll may be prepared and revised by a State Bar Council. According to the learned counsel, this sub-section is in violation of and is repugnant to S.49(1), 3 (4), 6, 7, 15 and 60 of the Advocates Act. We do not find any basis for such a contention. The contention of the appellant appears to be that the Bar Council of India cannot entrust the process of conducting the election to the State Bar Council. We do not find any basis for such a contention. The contention of the appellant appears to be that the Bar Council of India cannot entrust the process of conducting the election to the State Bar Council. So far as S.15 is concerned, it only enables the Bar Council to make rules for the purpose of that Chapter. Under clause 2(a), it can prescribe rules for the election of members of the Bar Council by secret ballot including the conditions subject to which persons can exercise the right to vote by postal ballot, the preparation and revision of electoral rolls and the manner in which the results of election shall be published. S.15(2)(d) deals with the manner in which and the authority by which doubts and disputes regarding the validity of an election shall be finally decided. Learned counsel for the appellant was not able to make out how S.49(1)(a) was inconsistent with S.15. The next section is S.60. According to us, this section has no application because it only deals with the power of the Central Government to make rules until rules are made by a State Bar Council. 24. The next contention is regarding the validity of R.13 and 3(j) of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules. R.3(j) of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules defines electoral roll as including the roll containing the names of Advocates prepared in accordance with the rules of the Bar Council of India in Part III, Chap.1. R.13 deals with the preparation of list of voters. It states that the electoral rolls containing the list of voters shall be prepared in accordance with the rules of the Bar Council of India. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that R.13 and 3(j) of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules are violative and arbitrary. Finally, the appellant has raised a contention that rules 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of Part III of Chap.1 of Bar Council of India Rules are ultra vires. These rules are framed by S.49(1)(a) of the Advocates Act. In so far as we have held that S.49(1)(a) of the Advocates Act is valid, there is nothing to show that these rules are ultra vires. Hence we find no merit in the writ appeal. The O. P. and the writ appeal are dismissed.