ADHIVAKTA MAHA SANGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADHIVAKTA Maha Sangh, through its Regional Secretary, both in his capacity as Secretary and as an Advocate of this State has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and has raised an issue of far-reaching importance as to if members of State Bar Council can continue to hold office even after expiry of their term. The gravamen of the charge is that a representative body elected for five years under statute is continuing in office by abuse of power and breach of trust reposed in it by delaying and postponing the election of members of Bar Council of State which became due as far back as May, 1985. Accusation of mis-use of fund by its members, charging of excessive travelling allowance, including airfare contrary to rules, holding of meetings by disciplinary committee at long distances to enable charging of inflated travelling allowances, organising Golden and Diamond Jubilee within span of five years to squander public fund have also been attempted to be highlighted.

(2.) SINCE the allegations about abuse of funds could be general due to paucity of material available with petitioner whereas it could effectively be decided only after examining detailed records of opposite parties we considered it appropriate to decide the principal issue only if the term of members of Bar Council came to an end after five years and if they became functus-officio thereafter or they could continue in office by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961 till their successor was elected. Further was the Bar Council justified in postponing the elections which were scheduled to take place in March and April, 1986 despite an undertaking given on their behalf in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18833 of 1985 (decided by this Court on 30th November, 1985) that elections shall not be postponed. In any case was there any justification not to hold the election as visualised in Act or Rules and if it was not then its effect ?

(3.) ELECTION of representatives of autonomous bodies, discharging public functions and duties under statute or even otherwise at regular or stipulated intervals is to ensure the statutory right which vests in every person, who is a member of such body to be entitled to contest such elections. Any effort to erode or destroy such right by delaying or postponing elections is an encroachment on the fundamental right of others to be elected after expiry of time of earlier office bearers. Such rights are not only civil but statutory rights which has to be protected and any effort to frustrate or thwart it has to be dealt with strictly by construing the provisions in a manner which may promote public and common interest. We must express our grief that an august body like the Bar Council which is expected to set patterns for other members of society rather than create an atmosphere in which a feeling may be generated that they are usurping the office by continuing in it illegally has failed to live up to its expectators. Legal consideration apart public interest has come a part of our jurisprudence. No action of public bodies created under statute can be countenanced which cannot withstand this interest. If a provision of law however flexible is abused because of lacuna or loopholes in it then the courts of law have to adopt clinical approach to avoid spreading of malady any further. In our opinion Section 8 should be held both on principle of interpretation and in public interest, to limit the term of office bearers of a Council to five years and no more during which it should complete the process of election for next term. Therefore, the term of the Bar Council which was elected in 1980 came to an end in 1985.