The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that the State Bar Council has no authority, power or jurisdiction to interfere with the election process or election of Bar Associations..The order was rendered by a Division Bench comprising of Chief Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, while allowing two similar writ petitions..One of the petitions was preferred by the District Bar Association in Bhind, whereas the other emanated from the Guna District Bar Association. The first petition sought to assail orders of the Appellate Committee of the State Bar Council, which has set aside the election of a candidate from the Bar Association in suo motu proceedings..As regards the petition preferred by the Guna District Bar Association, orders had been passed by the State Bar Council directing the Bar Association to submit the records as regards suspension of the membership of an advocate and also furnish the income and expenses details pertaining to the Bar Association election..In both cases, the common issue for consideration was whether the State Bar Council has authority to interfere with the affairs of the Association. It had been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Appellate Committee of the State Bar Council has no authority and jurisdiction to interfere with the election process of the Bar Association..In its defence, the State Bar Council contended that it was a statutory body having legal obligations to take necessary action in order to maintain uniformity and fair elections as well as the welfare of the advocates..The Bar Council also placed reliance on the case of Supreme Court Bar Association and others v BD Kaushik, whereby the State Bar Council has been conferred the power to supervise the elections of Bar Associations while applying the principle of ‘one bar one vote’..The High Court however distinguished this case. noting that,.“…BD Kaushik (supra) was a matter of membership of the Supreme Court Bar Association arising out the proceedings of the civil suit. The Apex Court emphasized on the principle of ‘one bar one vote’, but the apex Court has not held that the Bar Council shall have the power to interfere with the elections of the Bar Associations.”.The Court then proceeded to examine relevant provisions in the Advocates Act, 1961 as well as the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1982. The Court found that,.“…from a bare reading of the various provisions of the Act it is graphically clear that there is no provision either under the Act or under the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, 1982 to interfere with the elections conducted by the Bar Associations.”.The Bench also made note of the Co-ordinate Bench decision in RN Tiwari v State Bar Council of MP, wherein it was held that the Bar Council has no authority or power or jurisdiction to stay the elections process or to interfere with the election affairs of a Bar Association..The Court thus concluded,.“In view of consideration of the statutory provisions of the Act and the Advocates Welfare Fund Act, we do not find any provision conferring the power on the State Bar Council to interfere with the election process or with the election of a Bar Association.”.Read Order below.
