Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rajasthan High Court Advocates ... vs Bar Council Of Rajasthan on 12 May, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 9006-9007/2018
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ADVOCATES
ASSOCIATION JODHPUR APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE BAR COUNCIL OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9008-9009/2018
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9002-9003/2018
O R D E R
A challenge was laid by different Bar Associations of Rajashtan to the Bar Associations of Rajasthan Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2013 Rules”) framed by the Bar Council of Rajasthan. The said petition was allowed by judgment dated 06.02.2017 on the ground that the 2013 Rules were ultra vires as the Bar Council of Rajasthan did not have the competency to frame the Rules.
Having said so, the Division Bench of the High Court noted that all the Bar associations Signature Not Verified consented that the Court should exercise powers Digitally signed by Charanjeet kaur Date: 2022.05.14 12:40:08 IST Reason: under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to extend certain norms and guidelines in tune with 2 the directions given by the apex Court in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors. vs. B.D. Kaushik1. The Court made it clear that it was not intending to use the powers under Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 which is otherwise vested with the High Courts and that too for a field referred to under the said Section but was invoking the plenary powers of the High Court as a Court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. All the Associations categorically agreed to adhere to the directions by the Court. With a view to extend ‘supportive hand’ in terms of the aforesaid, the High Court observed that it may be appropriate to do so only with the assistance of the representatives of the Advocates and for that purpose constituted a Committee to suggest necessary norms to regulate all issues discussed in the conspectus of the judgment of this Court in the case of B.D. Kaushik’s case (supra) and Poonam Chand Bhandari vs. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur and Ors.2 decided on 09.10.2014 (Civil Writ Petition No. 18688/2013). A 11 member comprehensive Committee was thus constituted. 1(2011) 13 SCC 774 22016 SCC OnLine Raj 9567 3 The aforesaid order was not assailed by any of the parties.
The Committee thereafter submitted its report which formed the subject matter of the judgment dated 12.09.2017 and it is the say of the appellants before us i.e. the Rajasthan High Court Advocates Association, Jodhpur, the District Bar Association, Ajmer and the Bar Association, Jaipur that the challenge is limited to some of the aspects dealt with by the Committee and modified by the High Court. It is the say of the learned counsel that such modification was not appropriate and there was no need for the High Court to vary the same, the recommendations of the Committee being comprehensive in this behalf.
The aforesaid is thus the limited contours of examination by this Court.
The Committee in its wisdom inter alia recommended the following :
“...
(2) Requisite eligibility for election for the post of President at High Court and District Court Bar Associations, minimum standing practice in the Bar may be 15 years and in the other Bar Associations the same may be 10 years;4
(3) For election for the post of
Vice-President, General Secretary/
Secretary at High Court and District Court Bar Associations, minimum standing practice in the Bar may be 10 years and in the other Bar Associations the same may be 07 years.
……...” The aforesaid were sought to be substituted by the High Court as under:
“3. Notwithstanding anything contained in the by-laws of the Bar Association, no member of the Bar Association annexed with the Rajasthan High Court or any District Court in the State of Rajasthan, shall be eligible to contest election for the post of President, Vice President and General Secretary of the Bar Association unless he/she have five years standing at the Bar.” On hearing learned counsel for parties, who are also ad idem and we are also of the same view that on this aspect there was no reason for the High Court to substitute the time period of 5 eligibility for holding the post by reducing that time period as against the recommendations of the Committee.
We thus, consider appropriate to modify the impugned judgment(s) by substituting clause 3 mentioned aforesaid as recorded in the judgment with Clauses 2 and 3 mentioned aforesaid which are part of the report of the Committee.
Another aspect urged is that while clause 11 of the recommendations of the Committee, stated as under:
“11. It was suggested that the term of office bearers of Bar Associations should be enhanced from one year to two years”, the High Court in its wisdom has restricted the period to one year instead of two years, possibly arising from the use of the phraseology of Clause
2 i.e. “annual election”.
Learned counsels for the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Rajasthan both suggest that whether the election should be held on an annual basis or every two years should be an aspect best left to the Associations in question as there are different traditions in different places and such a situation also prevails 6 throughout the country. We agree to the suggestion and give our imprimatur to it.
The last aspect urged is as incorporated in the second norm prescribed by the High Court in clause 2 as under:
“No office bearer shall be eligible to hold any office for more than two consecutive terms.” Learned counsel for the appellants states that such a term was not prescribed in the recommendations of the Committee.
We have put to learned counsel as to what was the apprehension as it is the salutary principle of not having a scenario of perpetuity by giving a break to an office bearer. But her submission is that it has been construed as if no person can ever hold office for more than two consecutive terms. In our view, that would be a misconstruction of what the High Court has said as the restriction is for not holding more than two ‘consecutive terms’. It is not a life time bar that a person who has held office for two consecutive terms can never hold office again. The restriction is that you cannot once again contest elections having held the post for two consecutive terms.7
We may also clarify that since we have given the associations the option to have an election every year or every two years, such a restriction of not holding more than two consecutive terms would apply to a scenario where the election has to be held every year while in case the term has to be for a two years’ period, then the candidate should not repeat for the next term, i.e., the break will come after the first term itself.
We may clarify that the restrictions are placed qua the more senior office bearers, i.e., the President, the Vice President and the General Secretary and rightly so. Insofar as the minimum number of years are concerned, as the younger Bar members would occupy the other offices of the Bar Associations but the limitation of consecutive terms would equally apply to all the offices of the Associations.
One of the suggestions made by learned counsel for the Bar Council of India is that like the Supreme Court has a restriction of not more than four terms in total for any person, similar restriction should also be placed in respect of the High Court and the District Court Bar Associations of Rajasthan. Learned counsel for the appellants and the counsel for the State Bar 8 Councils have some reservations on it as it is their say that in some of the Associations, the person with requisite seniority may not be available.
In our view, there is no doubt about this salutary principle as it helps in bringing forth new talent and new thoughts to the post filled and so we consider appropriate that this aspect should be considered by respective Bar Associations depending on the exigency of each Association.
The appeals are disposed of in terms aforesaid.
....................J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] ...................J. [M.M.SUNDRESH] NEW DELHI, MAY 12, 2022.
9
ITEM NO.106 COURT NO.6 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 9006-9007/2018
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION JODHPUR Appellant(s) VERSUS BAR COUNCIL OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Respondent(s) WITH C.A. No. 9008-9009/2018 (XV) C.A. No. 9002-9003/2018 (XV) Date : 12-05-2022 These appeals were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Appellant(s) Ms. Ranu Purohit, Adv.
Mr. Surya Kant, AOR Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Adv.
Mr. Dushyant Parashar, AOR For Respondent(s) Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arpit Parkash, Adv.
Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR Ms. Shreya Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Ashish Madaan, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed order.
[CHARANJEET KAUR] [POONAM VAID] ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH) [ Signed order is placed on the file ]