Judgment :- (Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Declaration declaring the enrollment conducted by respondents 1-7 as non-est and void and consequentially order re-enrolment of all the 1167 advocates.) P. Sathasivam, J., Thiru R. Kaaruppan, an elected Member of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu seeks to issue a Writ of declaration declaring the enrollment conducted by respondents 1 to 7 as non-est and void and consequentially order for re-enrollment of all the 1167 advocates. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: According to him, he is an elected Member of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. On 23-11-2005 he saw a letter dated 18-11-2005 addressed by the Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, first respondent herein, to the Chairman and all the members of the Bar Council stating that an enrollment function was going to be held on 23-11-2005 and that the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court had consented to address the newly enrolling advocates. 3. In an enrollment ceremony, only the Enrollment Committee members had some role to play. The Chairman, Vice-Chairman and the representative to All India Bar Council had no role to play. But they were called to speak. One single advocate, giving the go bye to the undertaking given by senior advocate to present the candidate and move his enrolment, moved the enrollment of all the 1167. He came to know that the second respondent was the Chairman of the Enrollment Committee and respondents 6 and 7 were members of the Committee. He was wondering how and when the so-called enrollment committee was formed. How could any such committee act without the same being approved etc., could venture to conduct enrollment. Assuming that the formation of the enrollment committee is valid, and taking that it was formed only on 21st November, it is farfetched to believe that the said committee was able to scrutinize 1167 applications within two days time. The entire action of the constituting committees is grossly illegal. The parents, relatives and friends who had come to attend the ceremony, were put to great inconvenience the whole day. 4. The enrollment that was conducted by legally incompetent people is in contravention of Sections 10 and 26 of the Advocates Act. The enrollment should be declared to be void and non-est. The parents, relatives and friends who had come to attend the ceremony, were put to great inconvenience the whole day. 4. The enrollment that was conducted by legally incompetent people is in contravention of Sections 10 and 26 of the Advocates Act. The enrollment should be declared to be void and non-est. If the advocates are not duly and properly enrolled, then their appearance in the Court as of now would itself be illegal and if and when their status is questioned, they will have to re-enrol. 5. On perusal of the averments in the affidavit, we ordered Notice to first respondent-Bar Council of Tamil Nadu alone to ascertain with regard to the allegations made against it, particularly constitution of enrollment committee and others. Pursuant to the same, the Secretary of the Bar Council, Tamil Nadu-first respondent herein entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner has been acting only against the interest of the Institution by spreading rumours with some ulterior motive. Before the elections of the Bar Council, held in the year 2005, the petitioner made publications in his news letter published by him as its Editor and Publisher, called "Flaws" dated 20-8-2005 making scandalising remarks against the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner also made tall promises in his election manifesto which is in violation of all the Rules of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Election Rules. 6. The first meeting of the Bar Council was held on 11-11-2005 and the same was presided over by Mr. M.N. Ramalingam, a senior most member to electing the Chairman, Vice Chairman and the Member to represent the Bar Council of India and the committees were to be constituted. In this very first meeting held on 11-11-2005, the petitioner objected to the presence of Mr. N.R. Chandran, Advocate General of Tamil Nadu being the ex-officio member of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. Except the petitioner, no other members made any protest and the petitioner who was present throughout the meeting refused to vote in the election of the office bearers. 7. Due to the commencement of the election process in August, 2005, the enrolment of Advocates could not be conducted and in the meantime the final year Law course results were also published by the Dr. 7. Due to the commencement of the election process in August, 2005, the enrolment of Advocates could not be conducted and in the meantime the final year Law course results were also published by the Dr. Ambedkar Law University and as a result of which there were more than 1200 applications pending consideration for enrollment. The disciplinary committee were also not conducted for more than 3 months following the cessation of the previous disciplinary committees. In those circumstances, it became an imminent necessity for constituting various statutory committees. 8. The newly elected General Council of members of the Bar Council having elected the Chairman, the Vice Chairman and the member to represent in the Bar Council of India, decided to conduct enrollment of all those who were eligible in an enrolment function to be presided over by the Hon'ble Chief Justice who had newly assumed office. After getting consent from the Hon'ble Chief Justice, a communication was sent to all the members, including the petitioner herein on 18-11-2005 about the proposed enrollment of 23-11-2005. 9. In the meantime, a resolution in R.O.C.No. 867 of 2005 dated 21-11-2005 was circulated as provided under Rule 35 of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu in the matter of constitution of various statutory and other committees. The members were informed over phone due to paucity of time and the members who were contesting for various committees, expressed their views and informed the Secretary that they will give their consent and willingness in person when they visit to the Bar Council for attending the enrollment function to be held on 23-11-2005. 22 members subscribed their signatures/consent letters for the Resolution; therefore the majority of the Bar Council has approved the Resolution by circulation. 10. The petitioner who had participated in the function held on 23-11-2005 from the beginning till its conclusion by hosting of a high tea late in the evening to the invitees and dignitaries, has now come forward with the present writ petition with an ulterior motive of requiring all the advocates to re-enrol once again without any justification. 11. It is further stated that when the number of candidates enrolling increased over 100, enrollment ceremony were held in batches and it went on till late in the evening. 11. It is further stated that when the number of candidates enrolling increased over 100, enrollment ceremony were held in batches and it went on till late in the evening. Due to the difficulties expressed by the senior lawyers even to enter the enrollment hall, individual moving of candidates was not practically possible and therefore on behalf of the senior lawyers who have consented to move the respective candidates, all those candidates enrolling in batches were moved commonly by any one or more senior lawyers available during the ceremony. The administration of Oath to the enrolling candidates also could not be individually conducted and therefore all the enrolling candidates in each batch were administered Oath jointly and this practice has been in vogue for more than a decade. The former Chief Justice (Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Subhashan Reddy) delivered a pre-enrollment lecture to the candidates and enrollment of over 200 Advocates were conducted in the same manner how the present enrollment function was held. Similarly, during the year 1999 more than 500 candidates were enrolled in an enrolment ceremony after fulfilling all the Rules relating to enrolment of Advocates. 12. The application for enrollment is verified, processed and placed before the committee only after a candidate fulfilled all the requirements of Section 24 of The Advocates Act and there is no scope for any irregularities. On 23-11-2005 when 1173 Advocates were listed for enrollment, there were 46 absentees and the remaining 1127 candidates were moved by Mr. S. Prabhakaran, President of the Madras High Court Advocates' Association and Mr. Thambi Durai, Advocate and thereafter Mr. D. Selvam, the enrollment committee member, administered Oath to all the candidates, by requiring them to pronounce their respective names, followed by every candidate reading out the Oath. After the conclusion of the function, the enrolled candidates have signed the Enrollment Register. Pursuant to this enrollment, they have assigned Roll Numbers and the Enrollment Certificates have been prepared and sent to them. 13. Under Rule 35 of the Rules framed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, any business of The Bar Council may be transacted by circulation. Similar rules have been framed in Rule 6 Chapter II by The Bar Council of India under Section 15 (2) (h) and (j) of The Advocates Act empowering the Chairman of the Bar Council to transact business by circulation of papers in the event of urgency. 14. Similar rules have been framed in Rule 6 Chapter II by The Bar Council of India under Section 15 (2) (h) and (j) of The Advocates Act empowering the Chairman of the Bar Council to transact business by circulation of papers in the event of urgency. 14. The constitution of all the committees are on the basis of the approval of the resolution by circulation to ensure that the respective committees continued to function after the cessation of the earlier committees formed during the previous term. The resolution in R.O.C.No. 867 of 2005 dated 21-11-2005, which constituted the committees, was placed before the General Council meeting held on 21-01-2006 as required under the Rules. The learned Advocate General, being the ex-officio member of the Bar Council, by virtue of his office, is the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Advocates Welfare Fund and he is also the Chairman of the Enrollment Committee. 15. To ensure participation of all the elected members in various committees to serve the legal fraternity, constitution of the committees has been made with the consensus of the entire General Council of Bar Council barring a few members including the petitioner. By this conventional method of constitution of committees, even those candidates who have unsuccessful in the election of office bearers, were elected to head the committees as the case may be. It is not contemplated under the Rules of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to hold secret Ballet for constituting various committees and therefore the constitution of committees by a resolution circulated amongst the members is valid and cannot be found fault with. 16. Out of the total number of 1173 candidates listed for enrollment on 23-11-2005, 63 were from Bangalore University, 3 from Sri Venkateswara University, 2 from Pune University, 2 from Mangalore University and one candidate from Mysore University and the remaining were from Dr. Ambedkar Law University. In the enrollment held on 7-12-2005, out of 201 candidates listed for enrollment, 82 of them were from Bangalore University. In the enrollment held on 28-12-2005, out of 110 candidates listed for enrollment, 22 were from Bangalore University, 14 from Sri Venkateswara University, 2 from Kerala University, one each from Mysore University and National Law School of India, Bangalore. In the enrollment held on 7-12-2005, out of 201 candidates listed for enrollment, 82 of them were from Bangalore University. In the enrollment held on 28-12-2005, out of 110 candidates listed for enrollment, 22 were from Bangalore University, 14 from Sri Venkateswara University, 2 from Kerala University, one each from Mysore University and National Law School of India, Bangalore. In all these cases, necessary formalities to ensure genuineness and personal attendance to classes were obtained before hand and therefore the petitioner cannot make allegations against the Bar Council as if the Bar Council is conferring the Title of Advocate on a mere application. In fact, the Bar Council refused enrollment by rejecting the application in the case of four candidates and they have challenged its order by filing writ petitions and the same are pending before this Court. 17. Heard Mr. K. Subramanian, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Venkatakrishnan, learned counsel for first respondent/Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. 18. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that in view of the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Rules framed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, the enrollment committee was not properly constituted, hence all the actions, including the mass enrollment conducted by respondents 1 to 7 on 23-11-2005 have to be treated as non-est and void. He further contended that the provisions contemplated only election even for enrollment committee, and in the absence of election, the so-called enrollment committee constituted cannot have any force and consequently the decision taken to enroll 1173 candidates cannot be valid in the eye of law. On the other hand, Mr. K. Venkatakrishnan, learned counsel for the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, drew our attention to various details furnished in the counter affidavit, the relevant provisions from the Advocates Act and the Rules of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, contended that the constitution of committees, particularly enrollment committee cannot be faulted with and the same is in accordance with the statutory provisions and according to him, there is no procedural error or violation as claimed by the petitioner. He also submitted that conventionally the Members are elected for various committees by way of circulation which is permissible under the Rules. 19. He also submitted that conventionally the Members are elected for various committees by way of circulation which is permissible under the Rules. 19. Before considering the above contentions, let us refer the relevant provisions from the Advocates Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Rules framed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. Section 3 of the Act provides for the constitution of a Bar Council for each State. A State Bar Council shall consist of members specified in Section 3 (2) of the Act. The election of members to the State Bar Council is to be in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote from amongst advocates on the electoral roll of the State Bar Council. Further, the Advocate General of each State shall be the ex-officio member of the respective State Bar Council. For each State Bar Council, there shall be a Chairman and Vice-Chairman elected by the respective Bar Council. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 sets out various functions of State Bar Council. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 enables the State Bar Council to constitute one or more funds for the purposes of giving financial assistance to indigent or disabled advocates, giving legal aid or advice and for establishing law libraries. For the above purposes, a State Bar Council may receive any grants, donations, gifts or benefactions which shall be credited to the appropriate funds. Section 9 speaks about constitution of disciplinary committees and Section 10 enables the State Bar Council for constitution of committees other than disciplinary committees. As per Section 10 (1) (b), an enrolment committee consisting of 3 members elected by the Council from amongst its members. Chapter III of the Act elaborately deals with administration and enrolment of Advocates. 20. Among the Rules framed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, we are concerned with Rules 35, 36 and 38. Rule 35 makes it clear that the decision of the Chairman on all points of order raised at the meeting shall be final. It also enables the Bar Council to transact any business by circulation on a reference by the Chairman. Rule 36 relates to constitution of various committees. As per clause (b) of Rule 36, an Enrolment committee should consist of three members elected by the Bar Council from amongst its members. It also enables the Bar Council to transact any business by circulation on a reference by the Chairman. Rule 36 relates to constitution of various committees. As per clause (b) of Rule 36, an Enrolment committee should consist of three members elected by the Bar Council from amongst its members. Rule 38 speaks about the power and functions of the enrolment committee, as per which, the enrolment committee is empowered to deal with all matters relating to the approval or rejection of application for enrolment and supervise the preparation or maintenance of the roll of Advocates and additions and alterations thereto. 21. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner contended that in the absence of election from among the elected members of the council, the constitution of enrolment committee by circulation cannot be sustained. He further contended that if the Statute provides a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it should be done in that manner and no other manner. For the said proposition, he relied on the following decisions: (i) (1999) 8 SCC 266 – Chandra Kishore Jha V. Mahavir Prasad And Others. (ii) (1985) 3 SCC 398 (CB)- Uoi V. Tulsiram Patel (iii) (1999) 3 SCC 422 BABU Verghese And Others V. Bar Council Of Kerala And Others. (iv) (1980) 4 SCC 211 – Bar Council Of Delhi And Others V. Surjit Singh And Others. (v) AIR 1980 Patna 189 (DB) Bakshi Sbp Sinha V. Bihar State Bar Council. On going through the above decisions, we are of the view that absolutely there is no dispute regarding the said proposition. It is settled law that if a Statute provides certain things in the manner as prescribed therein, the same has to be done as said in the Statute and there cannot be any deviation. 22. Learned senior counsel also contended that in view of the term "election" used in the statutory provisions i.e., Section 10 (1) (b) of the Constitution of enrollment committee without an election is not a proper one. By drawing our attention to Law Lexicon P. Ramanatha Iyer – 1997 Edition, he would submit that the selection is to be made by way of ballot, uplifted hands or viva voce from among the elected members of the council. Here again, there is no dispute regarding the meaning of the term "election". By drawing our attention to Law Lexicon P. Ramanatha Iyer – 1997 Edition, he would submit that the selection is to be made by way of ballot, uplifted hands or viva voce from among the elected members of the council. Here again, there is no dispute regarding the meaning of the term "election". We have already referred to the rules framed by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. Rule 35 enables the Bar Council to transact any business by circulation on a reference by the Chairman. In the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, it is stated that the constitution of all the committees are on the basis of approval of the resolution by circulation to ensure that the respective committees continued to function after the cessation of the earlier committees formed during the previous term. In para 24 of the counter affidavit, it is also stated that the resolution in R.O.C.No. 867 of 2005 dated 21-11-2005, which constituted the committees, is being placed before the General Council meeting to be held on 21-1-2006 as required under the rules. On direction by us, the counsel appearing for the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu has placed proceedings of the Chairman of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu dated 21-11-2005. It shows that pursuant to the election of new set of Members to the General Council of Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, the first meeting of the General Council of Members was held on 11-11-2005 to elect Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Member to represent State Bar Council in the Bar Council of India. It further states that conventionally, after electing the aforesaid office-bearers, the newly elected Chairman, Vice-Chairman and the Member, Bar Council of India in consultation with the senior members of the General Council, as per Rule 36 of Tamil Nadu Bar Council Rules, 1985 will constitute various committees such as a) Executive Committee b) Enrolment Committee 3) Legal Aid Committee d) Complaints Scrutinising Committee e) Disciplinary Committees f) Legislation and Law Reforms Committee g) Privileges Committee h) Rules Committee. The said proceedings also show that the term of committees constituted during the previous term had already come to an end and all such committees have ceased from functioning, therefore, it has become necessary to re-constitute the aforesaid committees to continue the affairs of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu by circulating the resolution (Roc.No.867 of 2005 dated 21-11-2005) to the General Council of Members to subscribe their concurrence. The said resolution also states that applications for enrolment as advocates have been received from more than 1000 candidates and the applications have been found to be in order and due to non-constitution of enrolment committee, the enrolment could not be conducted. It also shows that one such candidate has approached this Court by filing writ petition and in such a circumstance it is stated that it is mainly needed to constitute the enrolment committee and other committees. The resolution also shows that due to the aforesaid reasons, the Bar Council in order to save time and considerable expenditure in convening the meeting and due to exigencies and paucity of time, the said resolution is being circulated to all the members of the council to confirm the election. It also shows that the members were requested to communicate their concurrence/consent. The said resolution was accepted and approved by 18 members by subscribing their signatures on the resolution itself and 3 members sent letters conveying their consent to the resolution dated 21-11-2005. In view of Rule 35 of the Rules, taking note of the fact that more than 1200 applications were pending consideration for enrolment, that the disciplinary committee were also not conducted for more than 3 months and that some of the applicants approached this Court for appropriate direction to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to enrol them as advocates, it became imminent necessity for constituting various statutory committees by way of circulation. Inasmuch as selection of members for various committees by way of circulation is permissible under the rules and in view of the urgency stated above, we are of the view that the constitution of committees, particularly enrollment committee by a resolution and circulation of the same amongst the members is valid and cannot be found fault with. Inasmuch as selection of members for various committees by way of circulation is permissible under the rules and in view of the urgency stated above, we are of the view that the constitution of committees, particularly enrollment committee by a resolution and circulation of the same amongst the members is valid and cannot be found fault with. Further, the File produced by the Bar Council shows that 21 members subscribed their signatures and consented for the resolution, therefore, the majority members of the Bar Council have approved the resolution by circulation. It is also relevant to mention that similar rules have been framed in Rule 6 Chapter II by the Bar Council of India under section 15 (2) (h) and (j) of The Advocates Act empowering the Chairman of the Bar Council to transact business by circulation of papers in the event of urgency. 23. Regarding contention relating to mass enrolment, inconvenience said to have been caused to many of the participants etc., the Secretary of the Bar Council has explained in his counter affidavit that due to the commencement of the election process in August, 2005, the enrolment of Advocates could not be conducted and in the meantime, the final year Law course results were also published by the Dr. Ambedkar Law University and as a result of which there were more than 1200 applications were pending consideration for enrolment. He also stated that in fact one of the applicants whose application was pending consideration for enrolment, filed Writ Petition No. 36048 of 2005 for a direction to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to enrol him as an Advocate. In such circumstances, it became necessity for constituting various statutory committees and also to complete the enrollment of pending applications without further loss of time. It is also brought to our notice that the petitioner being a Member of the General Council, whose name has also been printed in the enrollment function, and who sat on the Dais throughout the function, cannot be permitted to raise the said objection. 24. The Bar Council has also explained that there is no procedural violation in scrutinising the applications. It is stated that out of a total number of 1250 applications, only 1173 applications were found to be in order and the enrolment committee accepted the applications for being enrolled as Advocates. 24. The Bar Council has also explained that there is no procedural violation in scrutinising the applications. It is stated that out of a total number of 1250 applications, only 1173 applications were found to be in order and the enrolment committee accepted the applications for being enrolled as Advocates. It is also specifically averred that necessary formalities to ensure genuineness and personal attendance to classes were obtained before hand and there is no truth in the allegations made by the petitioner. Coming to the enrolment function that had taken place on 23-11-2005, the Secretary has explained that whenever an enrolment function is held, normally, the Hon'ble Judges of this Court also participate to deliver guidance lecture to the newly enrolling Advocates and it is customary that the Chairman and other office bearers of the Bar Council also participate and conduct the enrolment ceremony in such manner as they decide in consultation with senior members of the Bar Council. The Secretary has also explained that on 23-11-2005 when 1173 Advocates were listed for enrolment, there were 46 absentees and the remaining 1127 candidates were moved by Mr. S. Prabhakaran, the President of the Madras High Court Advocates Association and Mr. Thambi Durai, Advocate and thereafter Mr. D. Selvam, the enrolment committee member, administered Oath to all the candidates, by requiring them to pronounce their respective names, followed by every candidate reading out the Oath. It is also stated that after the conclusion of the function, the enrolled candidates have signed the Enrolment Register. It is also brought to our notice that Advocate General being the ex-officio member of the Bar Council and by virtue of his office he is the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Advocates welfare Fund and he is also the Chairman of the enrolment committee. It is further stated that in the past, from the time when Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, Mr. K. Alagirisami, Mr. K. Subramaniam and Mr. K.V. Venkatapathi to the present Advocate General, all of them have been the Chairman of the Enrolment Committee during their tenure. In such a circumstance, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot have any grievance for the same. 25. R. Krishnamurthy, Mr. K. Alagirisami, Mr. K. Subramaniam and Mr. K.V. Venkatapathi to the present Advocate General, all of them have been the Chairman of the Enrolment Committee during their tenure. In such a circumstance, we are of the view that the petitioner cannot have any grievance for the same. 25. Before winding up our discussion, it is our duty to point out the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, who has sworn to an affidavit on behalf of the Bar Council, could have avoided making allegations against the petitioner forgetting that he being an elected member of the Bar Council. We also feel that certain statements relating to the petitioner in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 are not warranted considering the issue raised in this writ petition. 26. Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the relief prayed for; consequently the Writ Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.