(1.) The decision of the Bar Council of India constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961 (the Act) conveyed to the Chairman and members of the Bar Council constituted for the State of Kerala under the Act in terms of Exts.P3 and P5 communications are under challenge in the writ petition.
(2.) The petitioner is an Advocate on the rolls of the State Bar Council. He was elected as a member of the State Bar Council during 2005, 2011 and 2018. In his capacity as a member of the State Bar Council, the petitioner served as a member of the Trustee Committee constituted under the Kerala Advocates' Welfare Fund Act, 1980 (the Welfare Fund Act) also as one of the nominated members of the State Bar Council for some time. It is stated by the petitioner that certain irregularities relating to the printing and distribution of the Advocates Welfare Fund Stamps were detected by the Trustee Committee during 2017 and the matter was reported by the Trustee Committee to the State Government and a vigilance case was consequently registered by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau of the State Government and the investigation in the case is in progress. It is also stated by the petitioner that while so, the Bar Council of India resolved to constitute a member committee headed by a former Judge of the High Court of Gujarat to visit the State Bar Council, examine the records, summon the concerned persons and submit a report after hearing the persons concerned as to the irregularities detected by the Trustee Committee. Ext.P3 is the communication issued by the Bar Council of India to the Chairman and members of the State Bar Council in this regard. In Ext.P3, the resolution adopted by the Bar Council of India has been reproduced. It is alleged by the petitioner that the aforesaid resolution is one purported to have been adopted based on a disclosure made by the Attorney General of India on 3.10.2018, while addressing a meeting in the presence of the Chief Justice of India that the members and office bearers of the Trustee Committee have siphoned trust money running to several crores. It is also stated by the petitioner that his name is also referred to in the resolution as one among the members of the Trustee Committee who alleged to have siphoned the trust money. It is stated by the petitioner that the Attorney General has not made any such disclosures nor there exists any material to indicate that the petitioner has any role in the irregularities detected, and his name has been included in the resolution at the instance of some lawyers who have an axe to grind against the petitioner. It is also stated by the petitioner that later, the Bar Council of India has informed the Chairman and members of the State Bar Council that the Committee appointed in terms of the resolution mentioned in Ext.P3 is proposing to have their first meeting in the office of the State Bar Council on 23.10.2018 for the purpose of enquiry.
(3.) The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the Bar Council of India being a creature of the Act, its powers and functions are conditioned with the provisions of the Act; that the Act does not confer on the Bar Council of India any authority to order an enquiry into the affairs of the State Bar Council as done in the resolution mentioned in Ext.P3 communication; that at any rate, the Bar Council of India has no authority to order an enquiry into the affairs of a statutory authority created under a different statute namely the Welfare Fund Act and that therefore, the resolution of the Bar Council of India mentioned in Ext.P3 communication and the decision of the Bar Council of India mentioned in Ext.P5 communication are illegal and without authority of law. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a declaration that the Bar Council of India has no authority or power to conduct any enquiry into the affairs of the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund and the functioning of the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Trustee Committee. The petitioner also seeks orders quashing Exts.P3 and P5 communications.