Judgment :- 1. The elections to the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Pondicherry were held on 4.3.2011 in accordance with the various directions issued by this court in interlocutory applications filed in the above suit. After the counting of votes under the system of single transferable vote from 9.3.2011 till 2.4.2011, Mr.Justice K.P. Sivasubramaniam (retired) appointed by me as an Election Commissioner filed a report on 11.4.2011 along with a lot of enclosures. 2. In the meantime, Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran (already impleaded as a defendant in the suit) came up with 2 applications in A.Nos.1739 and 1740 of 2011 seeking-- (i) a direction to the Secretary of the Bar Council of Tamilnadu and Podicherry not to declare the results of the election to the Bar Council; and (ii) a direction to the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Branch CID to investigate the corrupt practices adopted by the candidates, who contested the election to the Bar Council. 3. Similarly, another advocate by name Mr.N.S. Ziauddeen, who also got impleaded as a defendant, filed 2 applications in A.Nos.2184 and 2185 of 2011, seeking (i) a stay of declaration of results of the elections to the Bar Council; and (ii) the constitution of a Special Election Tribunal to conduct a detailed enquiry into the mal-practices adopted by the candidates in the elections. 4. Since the facts and observations contained in the report filed by the learned Commissioner indicate the possibility of the adoption of corrupt practices by some of the contestants, I have chosen to deal with the applications filed by Mr. Elephant G.Rajendran and Mr.N.S.Ziauddeen along with the report filed by the learned Commissioner. 5. I have heard Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran appearing in person, Mr.A.K. Sriram, learned counsel appearing for the other applicant – Mr.N.S.Ziauddeen, Mr.S. Prabhakaran, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff in the above suit, Mr.S.Y.Masood, learned counsel appearing for the Bar Council and Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General, who is also the ex officio member of the Bar Council and who is now in charge of the day-to-day administration and affairs of the Bar Council. 6. 6. In the affidavits in support of A.Nos.1739 and 1740 of 2011, Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran has pointed out the following : (a) that he received a letter from one Smt.Aruljothi of the Bhavani Bar stating that one of the contesting candidates contributed Rs.1 lakh to the Bhavani Bar Association; (b) that one Mr.Siva Suresh of Mettupalayam has sworn to an affidavit to the effect that one of the contesting candidates by name Mr.Ayyappa Mani distributed gold coins and Rs.3,500/- to the voters; (c) that an advocate, by name Mr.G.Muniandi of Mettupalayam, Coimbatore has also forwarded a sworn affidavit indicating that one Mr.K.P.Narayanan had given diaries to voters, to lure them to vote in his favour; (d) that two other candidates by name Mr.S.K.Velu and Mr.V.N.Subramanian have distributed Rs.10 lakhs to the voters; and (e) that an advocate by name Mr.Thamarai Selvan of Salem District had forwarded an affidavit stating on oath that a candidate by name Mr.Paramasivam gifted a travel bag to him to tender his vote in favour of Mr.Paramasivam. 7. In the course of arguments, Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran produced in a plastic pouch a small gold coin sent by the advocate Mr.Siva Suresh of Mettupalayam said to have been distributed by Mr.Ayyappa Mani. He also produced another pouch containing a cash of Rs.3,500/- sent by Mr.Siva Suresh allegedly handed over by Mr.Ayyappa Mani. 8. In his affidavits in support of the two applications, Mr.N.S.Ziauddeen has made very broad allegations without really pinpointing any particular candidate and without filing any supporting affidavits or other documents. However, the relevant portions of his affidavits, contained in paragraph 6 are as follows : "I state that, in fact, there are FIRs pending against members on the specific ground that money has exchanged hands and the specific purpose for such exchange is permission to start Law Colleges. I state that, similarly there are almost 40 complaints against a candidate pending before the Police Stations/Bar Council for various misconducts/offences and I understand that this particular candidate has secured one of the highest votes. I state that extraneous considerations have played a vital part in this and there are no regulations to monitor the qualities required for such candidates. I state that, similarly there are almost 40 complaints against a candidate pending before the Police Stations/Bar Council for various misconducts/offences and I understand that this particular candidate has secured one of the highest votes. I state that extraneous considerations have played a vital part in this and there are no regulations to monitor the qualities required for such candidates. I state that similarly, a candidate from Salem has not only given gold coins to the voters along with money, but lady lawyers of a particular Bar Association have been taken on a pleasure trip to Goa by the said candidate. I state that another candidate has taken the lady lawyers of another Bar Association to Delhi under the heading 'Supreme Court visit.' .....I state that certain associations went to the extent of promising support go a particular candidate if a certain sum of money, not less than Rs.27.0 lakhs, was placed with an escrow agent to be paid over to the association in cash on all the first preference votes being cast in favour of the particular candidate and to be returned if all the votes did not come in favour the said candidate......I state that certain associations threw their entire weight behind a particular candidate for which the office bearers have been presented with automobiles which is beyond their means. .... I state that certain candidates have also hosted grand parties of which one get together was exclusively for lady lawyers. I further state that it is a matter of great surprise that advocates who are working, who hold offices of profit, who have become Government servants, etc. all those who have suspended their practice/who ought to have suspended practice, have also voted in the elections held on 4.3.2011. I state that this by itself would go to show that even the electoral rolls prepared by the second respondent herein is not in accordance with rules regarding eligible voters." 9. Before I proceed to deal with the contents of the report filed by the learned Commissioner, I must record the outcome of the poll, as submitted by the learned Commissioner in paragraph 2 (L) and (M) of his report. As per these paragraphs, a total of 35,374 votes were polled, out of which, 1,323 were declared invalid, leaving 34,051 votes as valid. 172 candidates contested and in terms of Rule 27, the quotient was arrived at as 1,310. As per these paragraphs, a total of 35,374 votes were polled, out of which, 1,323 were declared invalid, leaving 34,051 votes as valid. 172 candidates contested and in terms of Rule 27, the quotient was arrived at as 1,310. Only one candidate by name Mr.K.R.R.Ayyappa Mani secured more than the quotient. The list of candidates who were found successful and the votes found to have been secured by them, are as follows : S.No.Name of the candidate Votes secured 1. K.R.R.Ayyappa Mani 1641 2. P.S.Amalraj 1310 3. S.Prabhakaran 1310 4. R.Arunachalam 1310 5. N.Marappan 1310 6. R.K.Chandramohan 1310 7. K.K.S.Jayaraman 1310 8. K.Kathiaravan 1310 9. V.Karthikeyan 1271.96 10. K.Rajarajan 1200.18 11. M.Velmurugan 1198.08 12. P.Paramasivam 1188.42 13. V.N.Subramaniam 1176.44 14. V.Yuvaraj 1175.82 15. T.Michael Stanis Prabhu 1144.66 16. A.Natarajan 1130.40 17. N.Sampath 1129.22 18. E.T.Rajendran 1109.18 19. D.Selvam 1096.54 20. M.Varadhan 1082.20 21. K.Veluchamy 1045.88 22. S.K.Vel 1044.52 23. K.Ranganathan 1042.08 24. G.Thalamutharasu 1024.96 25. Ariyalur Annasamy Venkatesan 1010.86 10. Apart from indicating the outcome of the elections and the steps taken for ensuring a free and fair poll, to the extent possible within the framework of the Rules, Mr. Justice K.P.Sivasubramaniam has highlighted in his report, the following:- (i) the areas where improvements were made in the present elections and the manner in which the election process was made more transparent than the previous elections in 2005; (ii) the suggestions for improvement; (iii) the allegations of adoption of corrupt practices by some of the contestants; and (iv)the possible motive behind the adoption of corrupt practices. 11. Let me first extract the positive aspects highlighted by the learned Judge in paragraph 18 of his report, which read as follows : "I ask myself the question, whether I feel happy about the entire election process. To be honest, I do not feel happy. It is true that compared to the previous election, certain loose ends were tightened as far as possible and with the Hon'ble Court monitoring the election process, many shocking activities noticed in the previous election were avoided as stated below : (a) same individual being a member of more than one association, thereby voting in more than one booth was a common feature in the previous election. This was avoided by a complete revision of the list of voters on the basis of enrollment, resulting in elimination of a person being a voter in more than one booth. This was avoided by a complete revision of the list of voters on the basis of enrollment, resulting in elimination of a person being a voter in more than one booth. The credit goes to the office of the Bar Council in having prepared such a list by adopting a software even a year back, due to the efforts of Mr. Muthukumarasamy, a staff of the Bar Council. (b) tampering of ballot box was reported in the previous election. It was alleged that in many places as the bar members themselves happened to be polling officers, with their collusion in some booths seals had been tampered. This time it was avoided by the Hon'ble High Court entrusting to the Presiding Judicial Officers, the duty of opening the ballot boxes and sealing them at the beginning of the poll and checking at the end of the poll and the ballot boxes being taken under their custody. (c) tampering of ballot boxes in transit after the poll as was reported in the previous poll was also avoided by entrusting the job to the police. The entire transport of the ballot boxes both up and down was entrusted to the police. An Inspector General of Police (Mr. Sundaramurthy, IPS) and an Additional Inspector General of Police (Ms. Sathiapriya, IPS) were specifically assigned with the job to supervise the entire operation, on the steps taken by the learned Advocate General. The entire operation of the delivery of the ballot boxes to all areas from Chennai and their return in coordination with the respective Judicial Officers was ensured by the order of this Hon'ble Court. (d) As far as identity cards are concerned, even though what was originally intended by this Hon'ble Court was only the identity card issued by the Bar Council, later on being informed that most of the members have not been furnished with I.D. card, voting was permitted with the I.D. card issued by the respective Advocate Association or the enrollment certificate. Strict adherence to the instructions that voting can be permitted only if one of the three identification materials are produced, had yielded good result. (e) In terms of the orders of the Court, polling observers were directed to be chosen by the Presiding Officers themselves by choosing members with sufficient seniority and good reputation. This had helped to a considerable extent to have a control over undesirable elements. (e) In terms of the orders of the Court, polling observers were directed to be chosen by the Presiding Officers themselves by choosing members with sufficient seniority and good reputation. This had helped to a considerable extent to have a control over undesirable elements. In addition, I had also sent about 40 Special Observers to the District Head Quarters and certain areas identified as sensitive areas. The Special Poll Observers had also discharged their duties in an exemplary manner. I have to thank them for their cooperation, which had ensured proper polling. Their reports would show that in many places their presence was mainly responsible for proper polling and avoidance of untoward incidents. (f) As ordered by the High Court, printing of ballot papers was entrusted to the security printers. In view of the number of contestant being 172 candidates, with great difficulty the format was finalised also by including the photographs of each contestants as requested by some of the candidates, notwithstanding the fact that it resulted in considerable increase of the cost of printing." 12. Regarding the allegations of corrupt practices adopted by some of the candidates, the learned Judge-Commissioner has stated the following in paragraphs 19, 22, 29, 30, 31 and 34 : "19. But with all the improvements effected in the poll process, yet I do not feel happy at the overall outcome. There are not only many areas/issues which require tightening up of further measures which can be eliminated at least in the future election. But the most incurable disease which is beyond control/scrutiny of the Hon'ble High Court or the Election Commissioner whoever it may be, is the wide spread allegations of corruption, buying of associations and individual voters etc., which is totally depressing and a shame on the noble profession. I would first deal with the issues which require attention to improvise the election process and then deal with the complaints of corruption. 22. The most depressing feature of this election is that notwithstanding all steps taken to regulate the election process, the fact remains that money had played a major part in the election and some of the successful candidates had managed to win the election not with their popularity or record of service to the society or to the profession, but only by means of the money they have spent. 29. 29. In the course of the election processes, I received complaints about gifts of diaries by 3 candidates, another candidate had given advertisement in a magazine and another candidate issuing pamphlets inconsistent with the rules. I had brought it to the notice of the Hon'ble Court by memo dated 23.2.2011. I had also pointed out in that memo that the materials thus placed before me was a miniscule of a large and similar activities indulged by many other candidates and that any action to be taken thereon (only against those 5 persons) will be viewed only as a selective one and others who are indulging in even bigger misconduct will go scot free only because they have not been brought to my notice against any specific candidates. 30. Before the date of election (4.3.2011), I had received two complaints : Complaint – I : A complaint dated 4.2.2011 was received from Mr.G. Krishnamurthy, Advocate alleging that Mr.Dhanapalraj, one of the candidates had donated a cheque for Rs.25,000/- to the George Town Bar Association on 4.10.2010 and the same had been duly encashed. I had disposed of the said complaint after noting that the donation was prior to the Gazette Notification of the election on 29.12.2010 and therefore no action can be taken. Complaint – II : Another complaint dated 1.3.2011 was received on 3.3.2011, just one day prior to the election from Mr. Ayyadurai, Advocate, Tuticorin alleging that Mr.Michael Stanis Prabhu, one of the candidates was indulging in corrupt practice and had donated air conditioner to the Tuticorin Advocates Association after the Notification of the election. He had also enclosed photographs. On the same day, Mr.Punniakodi, Advocate, Chennai, who was appointed by me as Special Observer was leaving for Tuticorin. I gave the complaint to him with a request to enquire and report. After his return, Mr.Punniakodi had filed a report in which he has stated that there was no newly installed A.C.unit as alleged in the complaint. It is possible that the unit had been removed after coming to know of the complaint to the Commissioner. But nothing can be done if the majority of the voters connive and collude with corrupt activities. 31. It is possible that the unit had been removed after coming to know of the complaint to the Commissioner. But nothing can be done if the majority of the voters connive and collude with corrupt activities. 31. In this context, I should also place before this Hon'ble Court certain complaints (all enclosed herewith) received by me after the elections : Complaint I : In the copy of the complaint received by me on 17.3.2011, Mr.V.Vaidyalingam, President of Omalur Bar Association, alleges that Mr.Ayyappa Mani had bribed the voters at Salem, Mettur, Sankagiri, by gifting Rs.2,500/- for the voters and one gram gold coin for lady advocates, electric oven, etc. The letter is addressed to the Registrar of High Court to be taken up as a writ petition and to order enquiry. Complaint – II : Mr.R.Srinivasan, Advocate, Salem who was the polling observer at Polling Booth No.79, had sent a report about the election process. He had not made any allegation regarding the conduct of the election in that booth, but he had generally expressed that money, gifts have played a great role, dinner parties with liquor, arrangement of picnic and tours and non practising persons exploiting the situation inclusive of obtaining the benefit of welfare fund in improper manner. Complaint – III : Mr. Elephant G.Rajendran had sent a complaint dated 30.3.2011 making similar allegations of corrupt practice against the following named candidates : 1. Mr.Ayyappa Mani 2. Mr.K.P.Narayanan 3. Mr.S.K.Velu 4. Mr.V.N.Subramanian 5. Mr.Paramasivam. 34. It is also a sad fact that caste and community has also played a part in voting. Though it may not be as bad as corruption or bribery, yet voting on the basis of caste and community is also not in the interest of the institution. When importance is given to the caste, the question of moral and professional eligibility is naturally pushed back. It is a paradox that this could happen in the election to the Bar Council where the electorate are mostly double graduates. But this malady is rooted in our system and we have to wait for better days." 13. When importance is given to the caste, the question of moral and professional eligibility is naturally pushed back. It is a paradox that this could happen in the election to the Bar Council where the electorate are mostly double graduates. But this malady is rooted in our system and we have to wait for better days." 13. While Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran has chosen to make a complaint of the adoption of corrupt practices by K.R.R.Ayyappa Mani, K.P. Narayanan, S.K.Vel, V.N.Subramaniam, Marappan and P.Paramasivam, the report filed by the Judge-Commissioner refers to the complaints received from others against a few other candidates namely Dhanapalraj, Michael Stanis Prabhu and K.R.R.Ayyappa Mani. The report of the Judge Commissioner also refers to the complaint lodged with him by Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran about the five candidates named in his affidavits in support of the above applications. 14. One common name that finds a place in the complaints directly received by the Judge Commissioner and in the applications filed by Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran is that of K.R.R.Ayyappa Mani. The allegations against him are made - (i) by one Mr.P.Thamarai Selvan, Advocate having office at Ramamurthy Pudur, Puthumariyamman Koil Post, Salem-3 having enrollment NO.509/88, in the form of a supporting affidavit; (ii) by one Mr.G.Muniyandi, Advocate having office at No.30, Krishnaswamy Nadar Lane, Mettupalayam Post, Coimbatore having enrollment NO.1051/2007, in the form of a supporting affidavit; (iii) by one Mr.Siva Suresh, Advocate having office at No.9/4/20, Annur Road, Mettupalayam Post, Coimbatore having enrollment NO.1189/98, in the form of a supporting affidavit; and (iv) by one Mr.P.Vaithialingam, Past President of Omalur Advocates Bar Association, in the form of an affidavit, but typed in a letter head, received on 17.3.2011 by the Judge Commissioner. 15. The supporting affidavits filed by three advocates by name Mr.P.Thamarai Selvan, G.Muniyandi and M.Siva Suresh, also name Messers K.P.Narayanan, V.N.Subramaniam, S.K.Vel, Marappan, P.Paramasivam and Kathiravan, as the candidates who had indulged in corrupt practices. In the affidavit sworn to by him, Mr.P.Thamarai Selvan has categorically asserted that Mr.P.Paramasivam gifted a travel bag to him, to vote in his favour. 16. The letter sent by Mr.P.Vaithialingam, is typed on the letter head of Omalur Advocates Bar Association. But, it is described as an affidavit and Court fee stamps have also been affixed on the same. The deponent has actually prayed for treating his letter as a writ petition. 16. The letter sent by Mr.P.Vaithialingam, is typed on the letter head of Omalur Advocates Bar Association. But, it is described as an affidavit and Court fee stamps have also been affixed on the same. The deponent has actually prayed for treating his letter as a writ petition. The contents of the said letter, which does not bear any date, but which was received by the Judge Commissioner on 17-3-2011, read as follows: TAMIL 17. Out of the candidates against whom allegations of corrupt practices have been made, Mr.K.R.R.Ayyappa Mani, Mr.N.Marappan, Mr.P.Paramasivam, Mr.V.N. Subramaniam, Mr.K.Kathiravan and Mr.S.K.Vel have come out successful. Mr.K.P. Narayanan, who allegedly distributed court diaries as gifts, could not get elected. 18. Therefore, out of the 25 candidates, who have come out successful, there are serious allegations at least against six. I do not know if the other 19 candidates also indulged in corrupt practices. All that I can say is that till date, neither the Judge Commissioner nor this Court has received any specific complaints of adoption of corrupt practices by the remaining 19 candidates. However, allegations are made generally against almost all candidates, as seen from the report submitted by Mr.R.Srinivasan, Advocate, No.79, Sankar Nagar, Salem 636 007, who was appointed as a Special Observer for Booth No.79 at Salem. The observations made by him in his report are as follows: "1. Though I can not point out particular candidate, money and gifts have played a great role. 2. Invariably all the candidates have arranged for dinner parties with liquor and I feel ashamed to point out that the advocates who took part in a dinner of one candidate have participated in the parties of other candidates also. 3. Even the candidates from other Districts have also arranged parties at Salem. 4. Candidates from other Districts have lured Advocates of Salem by arranging for picnics and tours. 5. I am astonished what is the purpose behind spending such huge amount." 19. In such circumstances, the question that arises for consideration is as to what should be done about these complaints. 20. Two suggestions have emerged at the Bar as to the possible course of action available to me. 5. I am astonished what is the purpose behind spending such huge amount." 19. In such circumstances, the question that arises for consideration is as to what should be done about these complaints. 20. Two suggestions have emerged at the Bar as to the possible course of action available to me. While one is by Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran, who suggests an investigation to be conducted by a Police Officer of the rank of Additional Director General of Police, the other is by Mr.N.S.Ziauddeen, who suggests the constitution of a Special Election Tribunal to enquire into the allegations and to submit a report. Both of them also request that the declaration of results be withheld. 21. However, Mr.S.Prabakaran, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that in contrast to the elections held in 2005, the present elections were conducted in a free, fair and transparent manner and that it is impossible to set right everything at one stroke. Therefore, he requests that the results of the election be declared and concrete suggestions be made for future elections. 22. Before looking into the alternatives suggested across the Bar, let me now have a look at the Bar Council of Tamilnadu Election Rules to see if the Rules themselves provide any remedy to the malady. As pointed out by me in my order dated 21.3.2011, the Bar Council of Tamilnadu Election Rules were issued in exercise of the power conferred by Section 15(2)(a) of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Rules received the approval of the Bar Council of India on 10/11.1.1976. 23. Under Rule 34(1) of the aforesaid Rules, a list of candidates elected to the Bar Council shall be prepared and signed by the Secretary and submitted to the Advocate General after the completion of the counting of votes. The Advocate General shall certify the list by his signature and thereupon, the copy of the list should be published in the official gazette under Rule 34(2). Under Rule 34(3), the persons, whose names are found in the list, shall be deemed to have been declared elected, upon the publication of the list in the official gazette. 24. Rule 35 prescribes the procedure for challenging the validity of the election of a candidate. It reads as follows : "35 (1). Under Rule 34(3), the persons, whose names are found in the list, shall be deemed to have been declared elected, upon the publication of the list in the official gazette. 24. Rule 35 prescribes the procedure for challenging the validity of the election of a candidate. It reads as follows : "35 (1). Any voter may contest the validity of the election of a candidate declared to have been elected to the Council by a petition signed by him and supported by an affidavit and delivered to the Secretary personally or sent by Registered Post to the Secretary within 15 days from the date of publication of the results in the Official Gazette. (2) Such petition shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs.1000/- by way of demand draft in favour of the Secretary, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and it is not refundable. (3) No election shall be called in question except one or more of the following grounds: (a) Fraud, Coercion or undue influence and any form of corruption in the conduct of the election. (b) Violation of the provisions of the Act or rules or commission of an election offence or irregularity materially affect the result of the Election. (4) Such petition shall include as respondents the contesting candidates with their addresses. The affidavit and petition shall be accompanied by as many copies thereof as there are respondents." 25. Rule 36(1) prescribes that all disputes under Rule 35 should be decided by an Election Tribunal consisting of three advocates of more than ten years standing. The Election Tribunal is to be appointed by the Bar Council on or before the date on which the election is fixed. The Secretary of the Bar Council shall act as the Registrar of the Tribunal. Among the three advocates appointed as the Election Tribunal, the senior most member shall be the Chairman. 26. Rule 38 confers upon the Election Tribunal, the powers available to a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code. But, the proviso to Rule 38 states that the Election Tribunal shall have no power to restrain any member of the Bar Council from exercising his/her right under the Act. 27. Rule 37 deals with the powers of the Election Tribunal, in extenso. It reads as follows : "37. But, the proviso to Rule 38 states that the Election Tribunal shall have no power to restrain any member of the Bar Council from exercising his/her right under the Act. 27. Rule 37 deals with the powers of the Election Tribunal, in extenso. It reads as follows : "37. The Election Tribunal shall have all or any of the following Powers (i) to dismiss a petition; (ii) to order recount; (iii) to declare any candidate to have been duly elected on a recount; (iv) to set aside the election of the candidate who either by himself or through any other person acting with his consent is guilty of corrupt practices. The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act. (1) 'Bribery that is to say' (A) Any gift, offer or promise of any gratification to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of inducing (a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at an election or (b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward to, (i) a person for having withdrawn or not having withdrawn his candidature or (ii) an elector having voted or refrained from voting; (B) The receipt of, or agreement to receive, any gratification whether as a motive or a reward. (a) by a person for standing or not standing as, or for withdrawing or not withdrawing from being a candidate; or (b) by any person whomsoever for himself or any other person for voting or refraining from voting, or inducing or attempting to induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting, or any candidate to withdraw or not to withdraw his candidature. For the purpose of this clause the term 'gratification' is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or gratifications estimated in money and it includes all forms of entertainment and all forms of employment for reward. (2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of any electors right including the issuing or sending of any appeal or manifesto for votes whether direct or indirect. Provided that a mere intimation of a candidate with a bare request for vote shall not amount to undue influence. (2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere with the free exercise of any electors right including the issuing or sending of any appeal or manifesto for votes whether direct or indirect. Provided that a mere intimation of a candidate with a bare request for vote shall not amount to undue influence. And provided further that a candidate or his agent may also orally ask for votes from voters, but on the date of election such request shall not be made within a radius of 200 yards from the Polling Station. And a candidate may issue a written intimation to this voters announcing his candidature and seeking their votes or their first preference votes, which intimation shall not contain any other publicity or his eulogy. Such written intimation shall also not amount to undue influence. Attempt to secure from any voter his ballot paper with intent to prevent him from transmitting it directly or with intent to ensure that the vote has been cast or is to be cast for particular candidate shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of the said voter. (3) the hiring or procuring whether on payment or otherwise of any vehicle or vessel or the use of such vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance of any elector to or from any polling station." 28. A careful scrutiny of the above rules would show that the Election Tribunal can set aside the election of a candidate who is guilty of indulging in corrupt practices, either by himself or through any other person acting with his consent. The manner of constitution and the composition of the Election Tribunal, are prescribed by Rule 36(1). In accordance with the said rule, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry had already passed a resolution bearing No.375 on 23.12.2010 appointing three Advocates by name T.V.Krishnakumar, S.Muthukrishnan and K.Mahendiran as the Election Tribunal. But, by another resolution bearing No.376 passed on the same day, viz., 23.12.2010, the Bar Council resolved to hand over the entire administration of the Bar Council to the learned Advocate General. 29. Therefore, as on date, it is the learned Advocate General, who is discharging the functions and duties of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. But, by another resolution bearing No.376 passed on the same day, viz., 23.12.2010, the Bar Council resolved to hand over the entire administration of the Bar Council to the learned Advocate General. 29. Therefore, as on date, it is the learned Advocate General, who is discharging the functions and duties of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. Therefore, I requested the learned Advocate General to offer his opinion on the allegations of corrupt practices adopted by a few candidates, as reflected in the report of the learned Judge Commissioner and in the complaints made by others. The learned Advocate General suggested that this Court could order an inquiry by an Election Tribunal, reconstituted after superseding the Tribunal appointed by the resolution dated 23.12.2010. Since this suggestion is made by the learned Advocate General himself, who now discharges all the functions of the Bar Council, I am of the view that the Election Tribunal could be re-constituted. It is needless to point out that the power to constitute an Election Tribunal vests with the Bar Council under Rule 36(1) and the Bar Council itself has conceded that the same could be re-constituted. The power to constitute includes the power to reconstitute. Therefore, there is no legal impediment for me to re-constitute the Tribunal. As a matter of fact, the previous Council constituted in 2005, assumed office on 12.10.2005 and their tenure of office came to an end on 11.10.2010. By virtue of the powers conferred under Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the term of Office was extended for six months. The extended tenure of the previous council also expired on 11.4.2011 and hence, as on date, no one except the learned Advocate General has any locus standi to constitute or reconstitute or oppose the re-constitution of the Election Tribunal. Since the suggestion for re-constitution has come from the learned Advocate General himself, in the larger interests of the institution, I am of the view that the Tribunal could be re-constituted. 30. Accordingly, the Election Tribunal appointed by the resolution dated 23.12.2010 is re-constituted with the following members: 1) Mr. G.Rajagopalan, Senior Advocate as its Chairman 2) Mr. M.K.Kabir, Senior Advocate and 3) Mr. N.L.Rajah, Advocate, as its members. 31. 30. Accordingly, the Election Tribunal appointed by the resolution dated 23.12.2010 is re-constituted with the following members: 1) Mr. G.Rajagopalan, Senior Advocate as its Chairman 2) Mr. M.K.Kabir, Senior Advocate and 3) Mr. N.L.Rajah, Advocate, as its members. 31. Once the Election Tribunal is re-constituted, then, the issues to be addressed are two fold, viz., (i) as to the procedure to be adopted for enquiring into the complaints of corrupt practices; and (ii) as to what should be done about the results of the elections now held. 32. As stated earlier, Rule 35 prescribes an elaborate procedure, for a voter to contest the validity of the election of a candidate declared elected by the Bar Council. They are as follows: (i) Any voter (not necessarily a contesting candidate) is entitled under Rule 35(1) to challenge the validity of the election of a candidate; (ii) The challenge should be by way of a petition signed by such voter and supported by an affidavit and delivered to the Secretary of the Bar Council within 15 days of the publication of the results in the Official Gazette. Since the results have not yet been published in the Official Gazette, the voters have time as on date; (iii) The petition is to be accompanied by a fee of Rs.1,000/- by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of the Secretary of the Bar Council; (iv) The challenge to the election could be on the grounds of (1) fraud, (2) coercion, (3) undue influence, (4) any form of corruption, (5) violation of the provisions of the Act or Rules, (6) commission of an election offence and (7) any irregularity materially affecting the results of the election. 33. A careful perusal of Rule 35 shows that the challenge to the election of a candidate, if made in terms of the said Rule, could be so made, only after the publication of the results of the election, as per Rule 34(2) in the Official Gazette. In other words, Rule 35 comes into operation and the Election Tribunal gets activated, only after the results of the election are published in the Official Gazette. In other words, Rule 35 comes into operation and the Election Tribunal gets activated, only after the results of the election are published in the Official Gazette. But, in the case on hand, the results have not yet been published in the Official Gazette, since this Court is monitoring the entire election process and streamlining the same, for the purpose of ensuring a free, fair and transparent election, sans corrupt practices, to the extent possible. Therefore, I am of the view that by referring the complaints received from several voters, such as P.Vaithialingam of Omalur Advocates Bar Association, Elephant G.Rajendran, P.Thamaraiselvan of Salem, G.Muniyandi of Coimbatore and M.Siva Suresh of Coimbatore, to the Election Tribunal and directing the Election Tribunal to conduct an enquiry and submit a report within a time frame, no serious violence to the procedure prescribed by Rule 35 would be caused. Since it is an election monitored by Court, from day one, the small deviations from the Rule, such as non payment of the fee of Rs.1,000/- as prescribed by Rule 35(2) and non compliance with the strict rules of structure prescribed under Rule 35(1), need not be considered as a flagrant violation of the Rule. Therefore, in fine, I am of the view that (1) the letter of Mr.P.Vaithialingam of Omalur Advocates Bar Association (2) the affidavit of Mr.P.Thamarai Selvan (3) the affidavit of Mr.G.Muniandi (4) the affidavit of Mr.M.Siva Suresh (5) the affidavit of Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran and (6) the affidavit of Mr.N.S.Ziauddeen, could be forwarded to the Election Tribunal to be treated as election petitions. 34. That leaves us with the last question, viz., as to whether or not, the results of the election be declared, in the meantime. As pointed out by me in one of the earlier paragraphs, there are divergent views on this question. One section of the Bar feels that in view of large scale allegations of corruption, the results may be cancelled and a detailed procedure evolved for the conduct of fresh elections, so as to keep money power at bay. But, another section of the Bar is of the view that the withholding of the entire results of the election or the cancellation of the elections, is not legally permissible and that it would only lead to frustration. 35. There are certain consequences that would automatically flow out of either of the above two alternatives. But, another section of the Bar is of the view that the withholding of the entire results of the election or the cancellation of the elections, is not legally permissible and that it would only lead to frustration. 35. There are certain consequences that would automatically flow out of either of the above two alternatives. If the results are withheld or the elections are cancelled in toto, it would render as futile, the whole exercise undertaken by this Court from January 2011. Apart from the fact that all love's labour would be lost for the Judge Commissioner as well as for the entire machinery that was deployed for the conduct of the elections, the further course of action to be adopted thereafter, would pose one of the greatest challenges of all times. There are two reasons for this, viz., (i) that the evolving of a fool proof procedure for the conduct of a corruption free election, even if possible by an Utopian dream, would require an amendment possibly to the Act and the Rules; and (ii) that a section of the electorate itself has become corrupt, exhibiting a willingness to demand and accept (if not sue for) gifts or money, for casting their votes in favour of a candidate. Even if the task of bringing about an amendment is within the province of this Court, the correction of the mindset of this section of the electorate, is not certainly within my province. Therefore, the withholding of the results of the entire election or the cancellation of the entire election, does not appear to be a legally permissible option. 36. On the contrary, the publication of the results in the Official Gazette and the assumption of office by the successful candidates, even during the pendency of an enquiry by the Election Tribunal into very serious allegations of mal practices against some of the candidates, would lead to those very candidates contesting and getting elected to the post of Chairman. This is the most undesirable consequence that one can ever dream of. As a matter of fact, the learned Judge Commissioner has pointed out in para 33 of his report filed on 11.4.2011, the following: "33. Now the next stage is set for the election of the Chairman. This is the most undesirable consequence that one can ever dream of. As a matter of fact, the learned Judge Commissioner has pointed out in para 33 of his report filed on 11.4.2011, the following: "33. Now the next stage is set for the election of the Chairman. About two days back there was a demonstration by a group of advocates in front of the Bar Council, alleging that heavy stakes were involved in the election of the Chairman and steps should be taken to prevent such open scandal." 37. Therefore, by publishing the results of the election, by allowing all the successful candidates to assume office and by allowing all the candidates to contest for the post of Chairman, I cannot turn the enquiry by the Election Tribunal, into a farce or empty formality. If any one of the candidates against whom serious allegations have been made, also manages to get elected to the post of Chairman, there could be nothing more disastrous for the institution. As a matter of fact, the learned Judge Commissioner has pointed out in para 35 and 36 of his report, the possible motive behind the adoption of corrupt practices by a few candidates. They are extracted for ready reference: "35. While dealing with the shocking information reaching the ears of every responsible citizen and even through newspapers regarding lakhs of rupees being spent on election for Bar Council, it arouses a natural curiosity to know about the exact reason for spending so much of money. I can now only think of three reasons viz., (1) possibility of making illegal money in disciplinary proceedings, (2) possibility of making money in granting recognition to private law colleges and (3) the status which a person gains as a member or as office bearer of the Bar Council and it gives lot of opportunities and the hopes to exploit his position with obliging judges, police and politicians and will provide a shield to many illegal activities. One need not spend so much of money if the motive is only to serve the Bar Council in a dignified manner. It is a matter of regret that in recent times the Bar Council had been taking part in the agitations held by Advocates' Associations on issues like clash with the police or public. Such an attitude on the part of Bar Council was never thought of some years back. It is a matter of regret that in recent times the Bar Council had been taking part in the agitations held by Advocates' Associations on issues like clash with the police or public. Such an attitude on the part of Bar Council was never thought of some years back. A statutory disciplinary body cannot involve itself in such matters. But that is the level to which the members of the Bar Council have converted the very object and functions of the Bar Council. 36. Apart form the three possible reasons mentioned above, there is a widespread allegation of misuse of Welfare Fund. It is not known whether there is any scope of making money in the matter of grant of Welfare Fund. The widespread allegation pertains to the issue of Welfare Stamps viz., that there is no proper accounting of the inflow and outflow of the stamps at various stages and lot of unaccounted money is generated by the sale of Welfare Stamps. " 38. Therefore, allowing scot-free, the candidates against whom serious allegations are made, to assume office and also to possibly get elected as Chairman, would make a mockery of the whole exercise, which this Court has undertaken painstakingly. But, at the same time, I should also take note of Rule 38, which reads as follows: "38. The powers of the Tribunal shall be of a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code and the enquiry regarding the election petition shall be governed by the Civil Procedure Code, provided however, the Election Tribunal shall have no power to restrain any member of the Bar Council from exercising his or its rights under the Act." 39. However, a careful reading of the above rule would show that the restriction on the power to restrain any elected member from exercising his rights under the Act, is only on the Election Tribunal. In the normal course, if the elections to the Bar Council are not under challenge and if they are not being monitored by this Court, the challenge to the election of a candidate would go before the Election Tribunal in due course. In those circumstances, the Election Tribunal cannot restrain by way of interim orders, any elected member from discharging his duties and functions as such, as a candidate would be presumed to have been duly elected, until proved otherwise. 40. In those circumstances, the Election Tribunal cannot restrain by way of interim orders, any elected member from discharging his duties and functions as such, as a candidate would be presumed to have been duly elected, until proved otherwise. 40. But, in respect of the present elections, the serious allegations of corrupt practices have surfaced, both during the period of campaigning and after the date of the poll. The complaints have not come after the results are made known. The complaints have not been made by defeated candidates out of frustration. Out of the persons who made complaints, only one, viz., Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran contested and lost. The others were not in the fray. Therefore, the power of this Court is not circumscribed by the proviso to Rule 38, in view of a lot of differences between this Court restraining the elected candidates and an Election Tribunal choosing to do so. 41. In view of all that is stated above, the two applications filed by Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran and the two applications filed by Mr. N.S.Ziauddeen are disposed of, on the strength of the report filed by the learned Judge Commissioner on 11.4.2011, with the following directions: (i) In the place of the Election Tribunal constituted by the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry, by the resolution dated 23.12.2010, a new Election Tribunal is constituted, with Mr.G.Rajagopalan, Senior Advocate as its Chairman and Mr.M.K.Kabir, Senior Advocate and Mr.N.L.Rajah, Advocate as its Members. The Secretary of the Bar Council shall be the Registrar of the Tribunal. (ii) Within a week from today, the Election Tribunal shall hold its first sitting at the premises of the Bar Council and take on its file the original complaint received on 17.3.2011 by the learned Judge Commissioner from Mr.P.Vaithialingam, Advocate, Omalur Advocates Bar Association, which is now in the custody of the Secretary of the Bar Council. (iii) On the date of the first sitting of the Election Tribunal, Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran shall also file the original affidavits of (1) Mr. Thamarai Selvan, Advocate, Ramamurthy Pudur, Puthu Mariamman Koil Post, Salem 3, (2) Mr. G.Muniandi, Advocate, No.30, Krishnasamy Nadar Lane, Mettupalayam Post, Coimbatore District, and (3) Mr. M.Siva Suresh, Advocate, 9/4/20, Annur Road, Mettupalayam Post, Coimbatore District. (iv) The Election Tribunal shall issue notices to the candidates against whom allegations of corrupt practices have been made in the above complaints. Thamarai Selvan, Advocate, Ramamurthy Pudur, Puthu Mariamman Koil Post, Salem 3, (2) Mr. G.Muniandi, Advocate, No.30, Krishnasamy Nadar Lane, Mettupalayam Post, Coimbatore District, and (3) Mr. M.Siva Suresh, Advocate, 9/4/20, Annur Road, Mettupalayam Post, Coimbatore District. (iv) The Election Tribunal shall issue notices to the candidates against whom allegations of corrupt practices have been made in the above complaints. The notices shall be accompanied by the xerox copies of the complaints/affidavits. The candidates to whom notices are issued, should file their written response within 15 days of receipt of the notices. Thereafter, the Election Tribunal shall fix a date for the production of evidence, oral and/or documentary on both sides. The Tribunal may keep in mind the fact that under Rule 38, the Tribunal has the powers of a civil Court, as conferred by the Civil Procedure Code. (v) After the completion of the enquiry, the Election Tribunal shall prepare a report recording its findings and submit the same in a sealed cover to this Court, on or before 30.6.2011. (vi) In the meantime, the Advocate General may certify the list of candidates who are declared successful, in terms of Rule 34(1) and the said certificate may also be got published in the Official Gazette. (vii) However, the six candidates against whom serious allegations of corrupt practices have been made, viz., Mr.K.R.R.Aiyappa Mani, Mr.N.Marappan, Mr.K.Kathiravan, Mr.P.Paramasivam, Mr.V.N.Subramaniam and Mr.S.K.Vel, shall not exercise any rights or discharge any functions as elected members of the Bar Council. They may participate in the meetings of the Council, but they shall have no voting rights. These six persons shall not be nominated to any of the Committees of the Bar Council and they shall not be entitled either to contest or to vote in the election to the post of Chairman. Since I am passing this order without notice to these six candidates, this part of the order prohibiting them from discharging the functions as elected members, shall be treated as ad interim ex parte orders, with liberty to these six persons, to file appropriate applications before this Court, if they deem fit. (viii) Until further orders to be passed on the basis of the outcome of the enquiry to be conducted by the Election Tribunal, the election to the post of Chairman shall stand deferred. Till then, the learned Advocate General shall hold the office of Chairman of the Bar Council. (viii) Until further orders to be passed on the basis of the outcome of the enquiry to be conducted by the Election Tribunal, the election to the post of Chairman shall stand deferred. Till then, the learned Advocate General shall hold the office of Chairman of the Bar Council. However, the constitution of various committees in terms of the Act, may be made from among the remaining 18 elected members, other than--- (a) those six against whom an enquiry is ordered hereunder and (b) the former Chairman, who is covered by the earlier orders passed by me. V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. After orders were pronounced, Mr.S.Y.Masood, learned counsel for the Bar Council sought clarifications as to whether the election to the post of Vice Chairman of the State Bar Council in terms of section 3(3) of the Advocates Act,1961 and the election of a representative to the Bar Council of India in terms of section 4(1) (c) of the Act can proceed. In view of the circumstances indicated in the order, the elections to these two posts shall also await the outcome of the enquiry.