Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2003 DIGILAW 1104 (SC)

Anoopsingh v. Bar Council of India

2003-09-05

B.N.AGRAWAL, Y.K.SABHARWAL

body2003
ORDER : Y.K. Sabharwal and B.N. Agrawal, JJ. - Having regard to the nature of controversy the petition deserves to be disposed of at this stage. We grant opportunity to the parties to file further additional affidavits along with documents within four weeks. Petition shall be listed for final disposal on a Friday in the month of November, 2003. The Registry shall intimate the date to the petitioner well in time since he is appearing in person. 2. The question now is about the nature of interim orders that may be passed. Under Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961, "8. Term of Office of members of State Bar Council.-the term of office of an elected member of a State Bar Council (other than an elected member thereof referred to in Section 54) shall be five years from the date of publication of the result of his election. 3. It is not in dispute that the term of office of the members of the State Bar Council, in terms of Section 8, has already expired on 18th March, 2003. Under proviso to Section 8, where a State Bar Council fails to provide for the election of its member before the expiry of the term, the Bar Council of India may by order for reasons to be recorded in writing extend the term for a period not exceeding six months. 4. Section 8-A provides for constitution of a special committee to discharge functions of a State Bar Council in absence of election either within time or extended time or in case of refusal to extend time. In the committee, besides ex-officio member, member from amongst the advocates of Electoral Roll of the State Bar Council are required to be nominated. 5. In the present case, State Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, on 27th January, 2003 had sent a communication to Bar Council of India stating that it term expires on 19th March and it is not possible to complete the Roll under Rule 40 by the said time and therefore the term be extended by another six months. 5. In the present case, State Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, on 27th January, 2003 had sent a communication to Bar Council of India stating that it term expires on 19th March and it is not possible to complete the Roll under Rule 40 by the said time and therefore the term be extended by another six months. The communication of Bar Council of India dated 10th March, 2003 to the State Bar Council reproduces the resolution of Bar Council of India whereby the term of the State Bar Council was extended for six months w.e.f. 25th April, 2003 for the reasons stated in the letter dated 27th January, 2003 under proviso to Section 8 of the Act. It cannot be disputed and has also rightly not been disputed that it should not be extended beyond 19th September, 2003 and, therefore, there was no question of extending it for six months w.e.f. 25th April, 2003. The High Court in the judgment under appeal while dealing with the Resolution of Bar Council of India has stated that the extension would be for six months w.e.f. 19th March, 2003. 6. The affidavit of Bar Council of India filed in this Court shows that during last about one decade in none of the Bar Council in the country the election was held without seeking extension under proviso to Section 8. Further it seems that in most of the cases the reason for seeking extension was that the Electoral Roll could not be completed and the extension was granted in routine. 7. The Bar Council of India, in the affidavit now permitted to file, would indicate that in cases where extensions were granted earlier, had any steps been taken by the Bar Councils to complete the Electoral Roll in terms of the Rules. The question of completion of the Roll and other formalities would arise only when it is commenced. Rules framed under Sections 3(4), 10B, 15(2)(a) and 49(1)(a) and (ab) of the Advocates Act lay down the detailed procedure with the time schedule within which the steps are required to be taken by the State Bar Council. 8. Referring to the present case, though, in the letter dated 27th January the reason seeking extension was that it is not possible to complete the Roll in time but it is not in dispute that the Bar Council had not even commenced any action. 8. Referring to the present case, though, in the letter dated 27th January the reason seeking extension was that it is not possible to complete the Roll in time but it is not in dispute that the Bar Council had not even commenced any action. If what is stated across the Bar is accepted as true the first step has been taken only in the month of August, 2003. 9. Having regard to aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the Special Committee contemplated by Section 8A shall forthwith take over the functions of the State Bar Council. The Bar Council of India shall appoint a Committee to discharge the functions of State Bar Council with immediate effect. The State Bar Council would not have any right to discharge the functions after 6th September, 2003. Without casting any aspersion on any member, we request the Bar Council of India that while constituting the Committee and nominating an advocate from Electoral Roll of State Bar Council, it shall not nominate any member of outgoing State Bar Council. 10. If a Committee has already been appointed and is not in accord with it, the same may be modified in terms of this order. The special committee will start functioning with effect from 7th September, 2003. Court Masters.