The Madras High Court has upheld a resolution passed recently by the Special Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTN), proposing to introduce qualification criteria for candidates standing for State Bar Council elections..Following extensive arguments made by various counsel, the primary question left for the Bench to consider was regarding the scope of powers conferred on the State Bar Council to frame rules under the Advocates Act, 1961 (‘Act’) and the Rules made thereunder..In the order passed today, the First Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose found that the powers of the State Bar Council to frame rules with respect to the conduct of the State Bar Council elections runs concurrently with those conferred on the Bar Council of India (BCI) under Section 15 of the Advocate’s Act. Reliance was also placed on Sections 6(1)(g), 49(1)(a) and (ab) of the Act, as well as Chapter II of Part III of the Bar Council Rules..Reference was also made to the case of Pratap Chandra Mehta v State Bar Council of MP to hold that wider, purposive interpretation has to be given when defining the scope of the State Bar Council’s powers to frame rules, so as to perpetuate the object of the Act..However, it was held that in the event of a conflict between BCI Rules and the rules of the State Bar Council, the former would prevail. Moreover, any rule made by the State Bar Council was subject to approval by the BCI under Section 15 (3) of the Act..In the instant case, the Bench found that there were no rules framed by the BCI on the subject of eligibility criteria/qualification or disqualification to stand for Bar Council elections. The Court admitted that the BCI Rules would have prevailed, had there been any on the subject. Since this was not so in the present case, the impugned amendments could not be found repugnant to any BCI rule..On the question of the Special Committee’s competence to introduce the impugned amendments, the Court observed that Section 8A of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the Special Committee would hold all the powers vested with the BCTN. This has also been reiterated in the case of Bar Council of Kerala v TD Parameswaran..The Court also observed that specific rules including ten or more years of continuous legal practice to stand for elections, disqualification of those with political affiliations and criminal antecedents etc, were not arbitrary..The Bench, however, made it clear that the Rules would only take effect if the BCI approves the same. The BCI had been expected to take a decision on the issue yesterday. However, the Court was informed today that the BCI had deferred the issue..Consequently, the Court allowed those advocates who have less than 10 years’ experience to file nominations for the upcoming elections, without prejudice to the consequences that may follow the BCI’s approval of the Amendment Rules at a later date..Read Order:
The Madras High Court has upheld a resolution passed recently by the Special Committee of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry (BCTN), proposing to introduce qualification criteria for candidates standing for State Bar Council elections..Following extensive arguments made by various counsel, the primary question left for the Bench to consider was regarding the scope of powers conferred on the State Bar Council to frame rules under the Advocates Act, 1961 (‘Act’) and the Rules made thereunder..In the order passed today, the First Bench of Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Abdul Quddhose found that the powers of the State Bar Council to frame rules with respect to the conduct of the State Bar Council elections runs concurrently with those conferred on the Bar Council of India (BCI) under Section 15 of the Advocate’s Act. Reliance was also placed on Sections 6(1)(g), 49(1)(a) and (ab) of the Act, as well as Chapter II of Part III of the Bar Council Rules..Reference was also made to the case of Pratap Chandra Mehta v State Bar Council of MP to hold that wider, purposive interpretation has to be given when defining the scope of the State Bar Council’s powers to frame rules, so as to perpetuate the object of the Act..However, it was held that in the event of a conflict between BCI Rules and the rules of the State Bar Council, the former would prevail. Moreover, any rule made by the State Bar Council was subject to approval by the BCI under Section 15 (3) of the Act..In the instant case, the Bench found that there were no rules framed by the BCI on the subject of eligibility criteria/qualification or disqualification to stand for Bar Council elections. The Court admitted that the BCI Rules would have prevailed, had there been any on the subject. Since this was not so in the present case, the impugned amendments could not be found repugnant to any BCI rule..On the question of the Special Committee’s competence to introduce the impugned amendments, the Court observed that Section 8A of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the Special Committee would hold all the powers vested with the BCTN. This has also been reiterated in the case of Bar Council of Kerala v TD Parameswaran..The Court also observed that specific rules including ten or more years of continuous legal practice to stand for elections, disqualification of those with political affiliations and criminal antecedents etc, were not arbitrary..The Bench, however, made it clear that the Rules would only take effect if the BCI approves the same. The BCI had been expected to take a decision on the issue yesterday. However, the Court was informed today that the BCI had deferred the issue..Consequently, the Court allowed those advocates who have less than 10 years’ experience to file nominations for the upcoming elections, without prejudice to the consequences that may follow the BCI’s approval of the Amendment Rules at a later date..Read Order: