Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 765 (ALL)

Anil Pratap Singh v. Bar Council of India

2017-03-10

ARUN TANDON, RAJUL BHARGAVA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Arun Tandon and Rajul Bhargava, JJ. 1. These are two writ petitions pertaining to the motion of no confidence brought against the Chairman of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and the procedure to be adopted therefore. 2. The first petition has been filed by the Chairman, Sri Anil Pratap Singh questioning the legality of the resolution made by the U.P. State Bar Council dated 26.11.2016 wherein a motion of no confidence is said to have been made against the Chairman and for quashing of the order dated 11.11.2016 passed by the Chairman of Bar Council of India in Revision No. 77 of 2016 as also for quashing of the order dated 24.11.2016 made on the interlocutory application in Revision No. 77 of 2016 by the Chairman of Bar Council of India. 3. The second writ petition has been filed by three members of the U.P. State Bar Council with the prayer that the notification published in Official Gazette dated 27.4.2016 containing the resolution/decision of the Bar Council of India dated 23.1.2016 be quashed. With the further prayer that the said notification may not be enforced and be declared as ultra vires. Lastly it has been prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to frame the rules in consonance with the democratic structure enumerated in Advocates Act, 1961 in the matter of appointment and removal including a motion of no confidence against office bearers of Bar Councils. 4. We have heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, Advocate on behalf of Anil Pratap Singh, the Chairman of U.P. State Bar Council. Sri T.P. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Nandan, Advocate on behalf of petitioner's of Writ Petition No. 5271 of 2016 and respondent no.3 in the first petition, Sri Rajiv Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Bar Council of India, Sri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate on behalf of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in both these petitions. 5. Before adverting to the legal contentions which have been made on behalf of the contesting parties in these two writ petitions. It would be worthwhile to narrate the relevant facts on record of the present petitions. 6. The U.P. State Bar Council (hereinafter referred to as, "State Bar Council") has been established under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Before adverting to the legal contentions which have been made on behalf of the contesting parties in these two writ petitions. It would be worthwhile to narrate the relevant facts on record of the present petitions. 6. The U.P. State Bar Council (hereinafter referred to as, "State Bar Council") has been established under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Sri Anil Pratap Singh was elected as the Chairman of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on 24.7.2016 for a period of one year. 7. In respect of appointments in Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh some differences arose between the Chairman and other Members of the State Bar Council. Certain Members of the State Bar Council forwarded a letter dated 28.9.2016 requiring the Secretary of the State Bar Council to requisition a meeting of the State Bar Council for consideration of the various decisions taken by the Chairman. 8. The Secretary is said to have requisitioned a meeting for 5.10.2010 and in the said meeting dated 5.10.2010 of the State Bar Council, various decisions were taken but no-confidence motion was considered nor was put to vote. Some of the Members of the State Bar Council preferred another application dated 5.10.2016 addressed to the Secretary for requisitioning a meeting for consideration of no confidence motion against the Chairman. On the said application an endorsement was made by respondent no.3, the Vice President for the matter being put up for consideration on 23.10.2016 before the general body. 9. The Chairman, U.P. Bar Council coming to know of the said order of the Vice-chairman passed an order dated 25.10.2016 cancelling the order of the Vice-chairman referred to above. This order of the Chairman, U.P. Bar Council dated 25.10.2016 was subjected to challenge before the Bar Council of India by way of revision by the Vice-chairman-respondent No. 3 wherein an interim stay order was granted by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India on the same date. 10. On the strength of the said interim order, a meeting of U.P. Bar Council is said to have taken place on 26.10.2016 where in a motion of no confidence is said to have been passed against the Chairman. 11. 10. On the strength of the said interim order, a meeting of U.P. Bar Council is said to have taken place on 26.10.2016 where in a motion of no confidence is said to have been passed against the Chairman. 11. In order to keep the record straight it may be noticed that the order of the Chairman, Bar Council of India granting interim order was subjected to challenge before the Delhi High Court by the Chairman, U.P. Bar Council, by means of the Writ Petition No. 5271 of 2016 which was however withdrawn and, thereafter, he made a fresh application before Bar Council of India, on which an order dated 25.11.2016 has been passed which is subject matter of the challenge in the first writ petition along with the resolution of no confidence motion dated 26.10.2016. 12. In the first writ petition, a notification of the Bar Council of India dated 27.4.2016 which contains the resolution of the Bar Council of India dated 23.1.2016, was brought on record by means of an affidavit. This notification, according to the petitioner, Anil Pratap Singh provides for the procedure to be adopted for bringing a no confidence motion against the Chairman. This notification is mandatory in nature and in absence of the procedure prescribed therein having being followed, the no confidence motion brought against the Chairman would be a nullity. 13. It is on record that the Vice-chairman filed writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1854 of 2017 challenging the Notification dated 27.4.2016, which was got dismissed as withdrawn on 17.1.2017. 14. In the meantime, it appears that the Chairman of Bar Council of India made an order dated 10.1.2017 keeping the notification dated 27.4.2016 of the Bar Council of India itself in abeyance. This order of the Chairman of the Bar Council of India is stated to have been ratified in the meeting of the Bar Council of India dated 20.1.2017. The three Members of the U.P. Bar Council have filed Writ Petition No. 5271 of 2016 challenging the notification dated 27.4.2016, which contains the resolution of the Bar Council of India dated 23.1.2016, (i.e. the second petition). Since the decision of the 2nd writ petition may have material bearing on the first petition as detailed above, both the petitions have been clubbed and placed before us. 15. Accordingly, we have heard the two writ petitions together. 16. Since the decision of the 2nd writ petition may have material bearing on the first petition as detailed above, both the petitions have been clubbed and placed before us. 15. Accordingly, we have heard the two writ petitions together. 16. On behalf of the petitioner, Sri Anil Pratap Singh it is contended that the Rules/Bye-laws framed by the U.P. Bar Council do not contain any provision in respect of no confidence motion being brought against the Chairman/Vice Chairman of the State Council and, therefore, the impugned resolution is bad for want of legal sanction. It is then contended that even if it is assumed that elected office bearers could be removed by a motion of no confidence, then such meeting for consideration of no confidence motion must take place in accordance with the rules/bye-laws which regulate the convening of the meeting for election of the office bearers. It is submitted that in the facts of the case, there has been no valid meeting of the Members of the State Bar Council wherein any resolution of no confidence can be said to have been considered. Admittedly, a meeting of the Members of the State Bar Council did take place on 23.10.2016 and in the said meeting no resolution for no confidence motion was passed against the Chairman. It is stated that the letter written by the 15 Members of the Bar Council addressed to the Vice President wherein they had only stated as to what had happened in the meeting held on 23.10.2016 could not be treated to be a requisition for holding the meeting of the Members of the State Bar Council. Even otherwise the Vice Chairman on his own has no authority to convene any meeting during the presence of Chairman. Therefore, endorsement made on the said letter by the Vice Chairman for a meeting being held on 26.11.2016 is wholly without authority of law. It is explained that under the State Bar Council Rules, the power to convene the meeting is with the Secretary of the Bar Council upon a direction issued by the Chairman or on requisition being made by the requisite number of Members of the Bar Council. The Vice-chairman has not been vested with any power to convene any meeting. It is explained that under the State Bar Council Rules, the power to convene the meeting is with the Secretary of the Bar Council upon a direction issued by the Chairman or on requisition being made by the requisite number of Members of the Bar Council. The Vice-chairman has not been vested with any power to convene any meeting. It is submitted that since the convening of the meeting held on 26.10.2016 itself is illegal, any resolution made in such a meeting will be of no legal consequence. 17. With reference to the supplementary affidavit filed before this Court enclosing the Gazette Notification dated 27.4.2016 it is submitted that the contents of the aforesaid Gazette Notification in fact are the Rules/guidelines framed by the Bar Council of India, which were mandatory in nature. A no-confidence motion could be brought in terms thereof only and not otherwise. It is submitted that the Bar Council of India has sufficient powers to frame the rules for regulating the functioning of the State Bar Council, which will include the mode or manner of a motion of no confidence being moved and considered. Reference has been made to the provisions of Sections 7, 15, 48-A, 48-B and 49(i) of the Advocates Act, 1961. It is further submitted that the Bar Council of India having laid down the procedure to be adopted in the manner of making and consideration of no confidence motion, the State Bar Council is bound to follow the same. A no-confidence motion can be said to have been validly made only in compliance of the said Rules and not otherwise. Sri T.P. Singh, Senior Advocate on the contrary submitted that the Vice-chairman of the State Bar Council has power, with reference to the powers vested under the Bye-laws of the U.P. State Bar Council to convene a meeting of the State Bar Council. Against the order of the Chairman cancelling the meeting which was scheduled for 23.11.2016, a revision was filed by the Vice-chairman of the State Bar Council. The Chairman of the Bar Council of India granted an interim stay order having regard to his powers under Rule 18 of the Bar Council of India Rules. This order was subjected to challenge by the Chairman, State Bar Council by means of Writ Petition No. 1854 of 2017 before the Delhi High Court, which was however withdrawn. The Chairman of the Bar Council of India granted an interim stay order having regard to his powers under Rule 18 of the Bar Council of India Rules. This order was subjected to challenge by the Chairman, State Bar Council by means of Writ Petition No. 1854 of 2017 before the Delhi High Court, which was however withdrawn. It is further submitted that the convening of the meeting on 26.11.2016 was valid and a no confidence motion has been made by the majority vote. The petitioner has no right to continue in the office. 18. Sri T.P. Singh with reference to 2nd Writ Petition No. 5271 of 2017 contended that the Gazette notification made by the Bar Council of India dated 27.4.2016 providing for the Rules for a motion of no confidence being brought against the Chairman and Vice-chairman of the State Bar Council, is without jurisdiction inasmuch as, Rules in that regard under Sections 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961 can be framed by the State Bar Council only. Even otherwise the Rules as framed by the Bar Council of India are impossible to be carried out and, therefore, unsustainable in the eye of law. Reference is made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala and others v. Unni and another, (2007) Vol. 2 SCC 365. 19. Sri T.P. Singh, Advocate pleaded that the Apex Court in the case of Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary v. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., (2015) 8 SCC 1 , specifically in paragraph 51 has held that even in absence of a specific provision under the Act or Rules or Bye-laws for removal of an office bearer, by way of a no confidence motion an office bearer elected by democratic process is liable to be removed in the event of loss of confidence by the electing body by following the same procedure by which he was elected to the office. He would explain that since in the facts of the case the Chairman was elected by majority Members of the State Bar Council, they have right to remove him by motion of no confidence as has been done in the facts of the case. 20. He would explain that since in the facts of the case the Chairman was elected by majority Members of the State Bar Council, they have right to remove him by motion of no confidence as has been done in the facts of the case. 20. Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate further emphasized that in terms of the directions issued by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2016 a Judicial Officer was present in the meeting of the Bar Council of U.P., held on 24.12.2016 when the confirmation of the minutes of the meeting which had taken place on 26.11.2016 was recorded. From the report of the Judicial Officer, it is apparently submitted that in the meeting held on 24.12.2016, the resolution made in the meeting dated 26.11.2016 regarding no confidence against the Chairman of State Bar Council was confirmed by majority members. Therefore, it is established from the record that the Chairman has lost confidence of majority members of the State Bar Council. This Court may not permit the petitioner to continue on technical pleas. In that regard judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Gyan Singh v. The District Magistrate, Bijnor and others, AIR 1975 Allahabad 315 (FB) (Reference para-24) is referred to. 21. Sri Rajeev Mishra, counsel for Bar Council of India stated before us that the Gazette Notification dated 27.4.2016 are the direction/guidelines, for the procedure to be adopted by the State Bar Council in the matter of making no confidence motion against Chairman/Vice Chairman, till the Rules are framed under Section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961. These guidelines have to be followed by all State Bar Councils in view of Section 7 (m) read with Section 48B of the Advocates Act, 1961. Reference is also made to Section 49(1)(i) of the Advocates Act, 1961 for the proposition that the Bar Council of India has ample power to issue directions which are binding upon the State Bar Council. He would submit that in absence of any statutory rule having been framed by the State Bar Council in exercise of power under Section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961 for regulating the procedure for making of no confidence motion against Chairman and the Vice-chairman of State Bar Council, directions issued by the Bar Council of India would be binding. He would submit that in absence of any statutory rule having been framed by the State Bar Council in exercise of power under Section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961 for regulating the procedure for making of no confidence motion against Chairman and the Vice-chairman of State Bar Council, directions issued by the Bar Council of India would be binding. So far as the order issued by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India on the revision filed by the Vice Chairman is concerned, it is emphasized that such power is vested with the Chairman of the Bar Council of India, under Rule 18 of the Bar Council of India Rules. 22. Lastly, it is submitted that the Bar Council of India having received various complaints in respect of the guidelines which had been notified in the Gazette Notification dated 27.4.2016, is itself reconsidering the matter and that the Chairman had passed order for keeping the said guidelines in abeyance on 10.1.2017, which order has been ratified in the meeting of the Bar Council of India held on 26.10.2016. He submits that the State Bar Council could therefore, make a resolution for no confidence, even without following procedure in the guidelines referred above as the guidelines are now not in operation. Sri Rajeev Mishra emphasized that the Gazette Notification dated 27.4.2016 contains guidelines. It is always open to the State Bar Council to frame its own Rules under Section 15 of the Advocates Act in the matter of making of no confidence motion, and till such time the Rules are framed, the general principles as per paragraph-51 of the judgment of Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary v. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., (supra) would apply. 23. Sri Anoop Trivedi in the rejoinder affidavit submitted before us that from the definition of 'Bar Council' and 'Bar Council of India' as contained in sub clause (d) and (e) of Section 2 respectively read with Section 15 of the Advocates Act, it will be seen that the Bar Council of India can make Rules for itself for carrying out the provision of the Chapter-II of the Advocates Act while State Bar Councils can make Rules for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of Chapter-II for its Council. He submits that Bar Council of India can also make Rules enumerated in Chapter-II for State Bar Council and, therefore, Gazette Notification dated 27.4.2016 has the sanctity of Section 15 of the Advocates Act thus, binding upon the U.P. State Bar Council. It is further emphasized that U.P. State Bar Council has not made any specific Rules under Section 15 of the Advocates Act for the purposes of Chapter-II. 24. According to Sri Anoop Trivedi, Section 28 of the Advocates Act, 1961 when read with Section 60 of the Advocates Act, makes it clear that the Central Government can intervene in the matter of framing of Rules where the State Bar Council has failed to do so but such power of the Central Government will not take away or dilute the power conferred upon the Bar Council of India under Section 15 of the Advocates Act to frame Rules for State Bar Councils also. It is stated that the Central Government has not framed any Rules for the State Bar Council of U.P. till date. 25. Sri Anoop Trivedi also referred to the various rules which have been framed by the Bar Council of India in the matter of preparation of electoral college for the State Bar Council as well as in the matter of elections being conducted, through ballot paper only, which matters are enumerated/covered by Chapter-II read with Section 15(2) of the Advocates Act. 26. We have heard counsels for the parties and have examined the material on record of these two writ petitions. 27. From the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary v. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., specificity paragraph No. 51, which reads as under : "51. The cooperative society registered under the Central or the State Act is bound to function as a democratic institution and conduct its affairs based on democratic principles. Democratic functioning on democratic principles is to be reflected in the respective Acts or Rules or bye-laws both on the principle and procedure. If not, it is for the court to read the democratic principles into the Act or Rules or bye-laws. Democratic functioning on democratic principles is to be reflected in the respective Acts or Rules or bye-laws both on the principle and procedure. If not, it is for the court to read the democratic principles into the Act or Rules or bye-laws. If a procedure is prescribed in any Act or Rule or bye-law regarding election of an office bearer by the board, as defined under Article 243-ZH(b) of the Constitution of India, and for removal thereof, by way of a motion of no confidence, the same procedure has to be followed. In case there is no express provision under the Act or Rules or bye-laws for removal of an office bearer, such office bearer is liable to be removed in the event of loss of confidence by following the same procedure by which he was elected to office." 28. It can be safely inferred that if the institution is to function as a democratic institution and to conduct itself on democratic principles then respective Act, Rules or Bye-laws must prescribe method for removal of the office bearers elected by democratic process by way of a motion of no confidence. In case such provision has not been made, the Courts would intervene and provides for such procedure. It has further been emphasized that if there is no express provision under the Acts, Rules or Bye-laws for removal of elected office bearer, because of loss of confidence then such office bearers can be removed in the event of loss of confidence by following the same procedure by which he was elected to the office. 29. We, in the aforesaid legal back ground therefore, need to examine following two issues: (a) Whether there is any procedure prescribed under the Advocates Act, Rules framed there-under or in the Bye-laws of U.P. State Bar Council for a motion of no confidence being considered against its elected office bearers namely Chairman and Vice-chairman. (b) If the answer to the first question is in negative then whether the resolution of no confidence made in the meeting dated 26.11.2016 is in-conformity with the procedure prescribed for convening of the meeting of the State Bar Council of U.P. for election of the office bearers or not. 30. (b) If the answer to the first question is in negative then whether the resolution of no confidence made in the meeting dated 26.11.2016 is in-conformity with the procedure prescribed for convening of the meeting of the State Bar Council of U.P. for election of the office bearers or not. 30. For the purposes of appreciating the aforesaid two issues, it would be worthwhile to refer to certain statutory provisions of the Advocates Act and the Rules as well as the directions issued by the Bar Council of India from time to time having bearing on the subject. 31. Section 2(1), (d) and (e) define 'Bar Council' and 'Bar Council of India' respectively, which read as follows:- "2. Definitions - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- ..... (d) "Bar Council" means a Bar Council constituted under this Act; (e) "Bar Council of India" means the Bar Council constituted under Section 4 for the territories to which this Act extends." 32. Section 3 of the Act provides for Bar Councils for each of the States, while Section 4 provides for Bar Council for the territories of India called Bar Council of India. Section 5 of the same Act provides that every Bar Council shall be a body corporate having perpetual succession. Functions of the State Bar Councils are defined under Section 6 of the Act and while those of the Bar Council of India have been defined under Section 7 of the Advocates Act. Section 7(1)(g) confers power of general supervision and control over the State Bar Council. Section 7(1) (g) reads as follows : "7. Functions of Bar Council of India. - (1) The functions of the Bar Council of India shall be- ..... (g) to exercise general supervision and control over State Bar Councils." Section 7(1)(m) confers power upon the Bar Council of India to do all other things necessary for discharging its functions which will include the function under Section 7(1)(g). 33. Section 15 of the Advocates Act provides a power to A Bar Council to make Rules to carry out the purpose of that Chapter, i.e. Chapter-II. Section 15(2) provides in particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the subjects on which the Bar Council may make Rules. Section 15(2) of Advocates Act, 1961 reads as under :- "............. Section 15(2) provides in particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the subjects on which the Bar Council may make Rules. Section 15(2) of Advocates Act, 1961 reads as under :- "............. Section 15(2) - In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for. - (a) 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; (b) **** (c) the manner of election of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Bar Council; (d) the manner in which and the authority by which doubts and disputes as to the validity of an election to the Bar Council shall be finally decided; (e) *** (f) the filling of casual vacancies in the Bar Council; (g) the powers and duties of the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the Bar Council; (h) the summoning and holding of meetings of the Bar Council, the conduct of business thereat, and the number of members necessary to constitute a quorum; (i) the constitution and functions of any committee of the Bar Council and the term of office of members of any such committee; (j) the summoning and holding of meetings, the conduct of business of any such committee, and the number of members necessary to constitute a quorum; (k) the qualifications and the conditions of service of the secretary, the accountant and other employees of the Bar Council; (l) the maintenance of books of accounts and other books by the Bar Council; (m) the appointment of auditors and the audit of the accounts of the Bar Council; (n) the management and investment of the funds of the Bar Council." 34. In our opinion, Section 15 of the Advocates Act confers power upon the Bar Council of India to frame rules for carrying out the purposes of Chapter-II for itself and likewise it confers a power upon every State Bar Council to frame Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Chapter-II for itself. In our opinion, Section 15 of the Advocates Act confers power upon the Bar Council of India to frame rules for carrying out the purposes of Chapter-II for itself and likewise it confers a power upon every State Bar Council to frame Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Chapter-II for itself. It is, therefore, clear that the Bar Councils can make Rules for carrying out the purpose of Chapter-II on subjects enumerated under Section 15(2) of the Advocates Act for itself i.e., A State Bar Council can frame rules to carry out the purposes of Chapter-II as well as on the topics covered by Section 15(2) of the Advocates Act for itself subject to however to the rider that the rules which are framed by the State Bar Council shall not have effect unless they are approved by the Bar Council of India. Reference Section 15(3) of the Advocates Act. 35. We are also of the opinion that the Bar Council of India has no authority to frame rules for the purposes of said Chapter or on the subjects enumerated under Section 15(2) of the Advocates Act for the State Bar Councils. The power in that regard is exclusively conferred upon the concerned Bar Council which would include the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India as the case may be. This flows from definition as contained in Section 2(1), (d) and (e) read with the words 'A' Bar Council in Section 15 of the Advocates Act. 36. We find that the Bar Council of India has framed certain rules in the matter of preparation of electoral college, qualification of membership and vacation of office and elections being held by secret ballot for the State Bar Council. Reference para-3 Chapter-I of the Bar Council of India Rules. These Rules also provide for conditions subject to which an Advocate may be entitled to vote for election of members to State Bar Council including qualification and disqualification and the manner in which electoral college or voters list is to be revised by the State Bar Council. These rules are with the rule making power conferred on Bar Council of India under Section 49 of the Advocates Act. The section confers a general power upon Bar Council of India to make Rules including the specific subjects thereunder. Section 49(1) reads as follows :- "49. These rules are with the rule making power conferred on Bar Council of India under Section 49 of the Advocates Act. The section confers a general power upon Bar Council of India to make Rules including the specific subjects thereunder. Section 49(1) reads as follows :- "49. General power of the Bar Council of India to make 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; (b) the form in which an application shall be made for the transfer of the name of an Advocate from one State roll to another; (c) the standards of professional conduct and etiquette to be observed by the Advocates; (d) the standards of legal education to be removed by Universities in India and the inspection of Universities for that purpose; (e) the foreign qualifications in law obtained by persons other than citizens of India which shall be recognised for the purpose of admission as an Advocate under this Act; (f) the procedure to be followed by the disciplinary committee of a State Bar Council and by its own disciplinary committee; (g) the restrictions in the manner of practise to which senior Advocates shall be subject; (h) the fees which may be levied in respect of any matter under this Act; (i) general principles for guidance of State Bar Councils and the manner in which directions issued or orders made by the Bar Council of India may be enforced; (j) any other matter which may be prescribed;" 37. We are therefore, of the opinion that the rules which have been framed under Section 49 in part-3 of Chapter-I referred to above on matters relating to State Bar Councils are strictly within the four corner of Section 49 (1)(a) of the Advocates Act and within the power of supervision and general control over the State Bar Councils. 38. We are therefore, of the opinion that the rules which have been framed under Section 49 in part-3 of Chapter-I referred to above on matters relating to State Bar Councils are strictly within the four corner of Section 49 (1)(a) of the Advocates Act and within the power of supervision and general control over the State Bar Councils. 38. We are also of the opinion that for matters pertaining to election of Members of the State Bar Council including the manner thereof as provided under Section 15(1)(c) of the Advocates Act could be regulated by rules to be framed by the concerned State Bar Council only and not by any rules to be framed by the Bar Council of India and probably it is this background that the counsel for the Bar Council of India Sri Rajeev Mishra, Advocate has taken a categorical stand before us that the Gazette Notification dated 27.4.2016 is not a Rule framed by the Bar Council of India, under Section 15 of the Advocates Act. It only provides for guidelines in exercise of supervisory power for regulating the procedure for making of a no confidence motion against elected office bearers as various State Bar Councils had not framed any Rule in that regard till that date. He has explained that these guidelines would continue to bind the State Bar Council's so long as statutory rules under Section 15(1)/(2) are not framed by the State Bar Council concerned. 39. We may record that power to frame the rules as contemplated by Section 15 of the Advocates Act will not in any way take away the power of the Bar Council of India to exercise its supervisory power and to issue guidelines as is conferred by Section 7(g)(m) of the Advocates Act as well as the general powers to issue directions to the State Bar Council as conferred under Section 48B of the Advocates Act, on issues not covered by Statutory Rules. Section 48-B reads as follows : "Section 48-B. Power to give directions - (1) For the proper and efficient discharge of the functions of a State Bar Council or any committee thereof, the Bar Council of India may, in the exercise of its powers of general supervision and control, give such directions to the State Bar Council or any committee thereof as may appear to it to be necessary, and the State Bar Council or the committee shall comply with such directions. (2) Where a State Bar Council is unable to perform its functions for any reason whatsoever, the Bar Council of India may without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, give such directions to the ex officio member thereof as may appear to it to be necessary, and such direction shall have effect, notwithstanding anything contained in the rules made by the State Bar Council." 40. We hold that the Gazette Notification which has been published on 27.4.2016 is actually in the nature of guidelines and directions issued by the Bar Council of India for regulating the procedure to be adopted in the matter of no confidence motion being brought against elected office bearers of the State Bar Council. The same are well within its authority conferred under Section 7(1)(g)(m) read with Section 48(b) of the Advocates Act. These guidelines, in our opinion would bind the State Bar Council so long as the statutory rules under Section 15(1) of the Advocates Act, are not framed. Even otherwise the Rules to be framed by State Bar Council need necessary approval of the Bar Council of India for being effective in view of Section 15(3) of the Advocates Act. 41. We come to the conclusion that in the facts of the case since there are no statutory rules framed for regulating the procedure prescribed for making no confidence motion against Vice-chairman and Chairman of U.P. State Bar Councils, the guidelines/directions framed by Bar Council of India as per Gazette Notification dated 27.4.2016 are binding upon the State Bar Council. Any motion of no confidence subsequent to the date of publication of the notification in the Gazette, i.e. 27.4.2016 has to be inconformity with the conditions contained therein and not otherwise. 42. Any motion of no confidence subsequent to the date of publication of the notification in the Gazette, i.e. 27.4.2016 has to be inconformity with the conditions contained therein and not otherwise. 42. In the facts of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the motion of no confidence against Sri Anil Pratap Singh has been brought de-horse the guidelines framed by the Bar Council of India vide gazette notification dated 27.4.2016 and, therefore, unsustainable in the eyes of law. 43. We may also clarify that keeping of such directions and guidelines in abeyance under the order of Chairman, Bar Council dated 10.1.2017 and ratification thereof is stated to be done in the meeting of Bar Council of India dated 20.1.2017 will only be prospective in nature and would not validate an action taken prior to the date of order of the Chairman/rectified by the Bar Council of India as aforesaid. 44. We also conscious of the objection which has been raised by Sri T.P. Singh in respect of guidelines being improper and practically creating a situation wherein a motion of no confidence can never be brought. The veto power conferred upon the ex-officio members is patently contrary to democratic principles. Decision of the majority members of the Bar Council cannot be made subject to the requirement of a positive vote from certain Ex-officio members. Such condition would per-se be in the nature of veto which is clearly undemocratic. 45. Another objection raised on behalf of Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, to the guidelines framed is with regard to a no confidence motion being brought only when the alleged charges are found proved by a Committee of Senior Judges of High Court and Senior Advocates. It is emphasized that a motion of no confidence, is brought not because of proved misconduct but because of loss of confidence by majority members in the elected office bearer. 46. Objections raised by Sri T.P. Singh need to be considered by the Bar Council of India itself at the first instance. 47. We are therefore, not expressing any final opinion in the matter as we have been informed that the Bar Council of India is itself re-examining the matter in the light of the objections which has been received in respect of guidelines notified on 27.4.2016. 48. 47. We are therefore, not expressing any final opinion in the matter as we have been informed that the Bar Council of India is itself re-examining the matter in the light of the objections which has been received in respect of guidelines notified on 27.4.2016. 48. In our opinion, Bar Council of India must finalize the guidelines to be followed in the matter of no confidence motion to brought against elected office bearers in a time bound manner. A period of two months would suffice. 49. We grant liberty to the Members of the State Bar Council including Vice-chairman and Chairman to file their respective representations in the matter which must be examined by the Bar Council of India before finalizing the guidelines. We have no doubt that such objection shall receive due consideration from Bar Council of India. 50. We are also of the opinion that the Bar Council of India must insist upon all the State Bar Councils to frame rules under Section 15 of the Advocates Act for regulating the moving and consideration of no confidence motion against its elected office bearers specifically in view of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary (supra). The Bar Council of India must fix a time limit for such Rules to be framed and notified by the State Bar Councils. 51. Since the answer to the first question is in affirmative, the second question does not survive for answer. However, in the interest of justice, we have also examined the procedure which has been followed in the matter of convening of the meeting by Vice-chairman on 26.11.2016. 52. From the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary (supra), it is apparent that in absence of statutory Rules/Bye-laws regulating the procedure for no confidence, the same procedure by which an office bearer is elected has to be followed for his removal on loss of confidence by the majority members in all democratic institution. What logically follows is that the procedure prescribed for convening of meeting of the State Bar Council for electing office bearers has to be strictly followed in the matter of consideration of any motion of no confidence. 53. What logically follows is that the procedure prescribed for convening of meeting of the State Bar Council for electing office bearers has to be strictly followed in the matter of consideration of any motion of no confidence. 53. From the Rules framed by Bar Council of U.P. at Allahabad as per its meeting held on 9.9.1979 with the approval of Bar Council of India dated 6.5.1972 provide that the authority to convene the meeting of the State Bar Council is with Chairman, reference Rule 1(c). It is only in the absence of the Chairman that Vice-chairman of the Council acts all exercises the powers assigned to the Chairman or he may discharge such functions as the Chairman may authorize. 54. Similarly, we find that the Secretary of the State Bar Council is to act as an executing officer for the purpose of convening of meeting of the State Bar Council under the direction of the Chairman of the Bar Council or the convener of the particular meeting. Reference Rule 10. 15 days notice has been provided for a meeting of the U.P. State Bar Council. Extraordinary and urgent meeting can be convened even in absence of 15 days notice. We further find that a power has been conferred upon 7 members of the Bar council to requisition a meeting of the U.P. Bar Council and the Secretary on receipt of such requisition is obliged to call a meeting of the Bar Council within 10 days of the receipt of the notice. If the secretary fails to do so the requisionist can themselves convene a meeting. However, Rule 19 provides that in such requisitioned meeting only such agenda shall be considered as forms part of the requisition and no other matter shall be taken up. 55. From a simple reading of the aforesaid statutory provisions it is apparent that the power to convene a meeting is vested with the Chairman of the U.P. State Bar council and it is only on his direction that the Secretary is required to issue a notice for convening of the meeting subject however to the condition that a requisitioned meeting can be convened by 7 members of the Bar Council for a particular specific purpose to be stated in the requisition itself. The Vice Chairman gets a power to convene the meeting only in the absence of Chairman, or under his authority. 56. The Vice Chairman gets a power to convene the meeting only in the absence of Chairman, or under his authority. 56. We have carefully examined the letter which was written by the 15 members of the Bar Council of U.P. addressed to the Secretary, which is enclosed at page 132 of the paper book, we find that there is no request for requisitioning any meeting of the Bar Council nor any particular agenda which is to be considered in such requisitioned meeting has been mentioned therein. The letter only records that the signatory to the letter had left the meeting held on 23.10.2016 and that no agenda could be discussed. 57. In our opinion, such letter cannot termed to be requisition for convening the meeting, nor the Secretary was authorised to direct that the letter may be put up before the Vice-chairman specifically when the Chairman was still holding office. We also record that the Vice-chairman had no authority of law to convene any meeting for 26.11.2016 at 12.00 AM. More so, when no agenda was disclosed to be considered nor there is a mention of the particular agenda to be considered in the said meeting. 58. So for the order of the Chairman, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh dated 25.10.2016 is concerned, we find that it is of no legal consequence for 2 reasons; (a) the Chairman of Bar Council of India cannot confer a power upon the Vice-chairman of U.P. State Bar Council to convene a meeting of the State Bar Council contrary to the Bye-laws of the U.P. State Bar Council. (b) authority to convene the meeting which is provided under the interim order of the Chairman, Bar Council of India was dehors the guidelines framed by the Bar Council of India itself as notified in the Gazette dated 26.4.2016 which were in force on the date the order was passed by the Chairman. 59. In our opinion, affirmance of the minutes of the illegal meeting dated 26.11.2016 in the meeting of the U.P. State Bar Council held on 24.12.2016 in the presence of the Judicial Officer of this Court is also of no legal consequence inasmuch as confirmation of the minutes of a void meeting will not infuse life in the dead resolution. 59. In our opinion, affirmance of the minutes of the illegal meeting dated 26.11.2016 in the meeting of the U.P. State Bar Council held on 24.12.2016 in the presence of the Judicial Officer of this Court is also of no legal consequence inasmuch as confirmation of the minutes of a void meeting will not infuse life in the dead resolution. The conforming of minutes of the earlier meeting in the subsequent meeting is only for the purpose of recording that resolutions in fact made in the earlier meeting have been correctly recorded. It does not decide as to whether the earlier meeting was a validly convened meeting or not. 60. For all aforesaid reasons, we hold that there has been no convening of the meeting in the manner required under the bye-laws of the U.P. State Bar Council for consideration of the no confidence motion. Therefore, the second question is also to be answered against the no confidence motion which has been made on 26.11.2016 for want of convening of a proper meeting. 61. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition filed by Sri Anil Pratap Singh is hereby allowed. The resolution of no confidence motion made in the meeting dated 26.11.2016, is hereby set aside. 62. The writ petition filed by three Members of U.P. State Bar Council, is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to represent their grievance in the matter of guidelines to be framed by Bar Council of India for regulating the procedure to be adopted in the matter of no confidence to be brought against elected office bearers namely, Chairman and Vice Chairman of State Bar Council within 6 weeks along with certified copy of this order. Representation shall receive active consideration of the Bar Council of India and guidelines to be prescribed shall be notified keeping in mind all legal aspects of the matter. We further direct that the Bar Council of India shall ensure that statutory Rules under Section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961 are framed by State Bar Council of U.P. in the matter of making of no confidence motion against its elected office bearers in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vipulbhai M. Chaudhary (supra), in a time bound manner.