RISHIKUMAR SHINGLA Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A copy of writ petition along with annexures be supplied to Shri Siddharth Gulati and Shri Udayan Tiwari, Advocates appearing for respondents on advance notice, during the course of the day. Learned counsel for parties are heard on the question of interim relief.

(2.) A resolution has been passed by the State Bar Council of M.P. being resolution No. 613/GB/2013 and based on this the Chairman has formulated certain rules, guidelines for conduct of election to the State Bar Council; and, in part A of the said rule/guidelines certain disqualifications have been prescribed in the matter of determining the eligibility of a candidate to participate in the forthcoming elections to the State Bar Council of M.P. As far as the present petition is concerned the question is with regard to disqualification contemplated under clause (1)(b). Clause (1)(b) of the rules/guidelines reads as under:-

(3.) It is pointed out by Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate that the second part of the resolution which prescribes that an Advocate against whom cognizance has been taken by the State Bar Council on a complaint u/s. 35 of the Advocate Act, from contending in the election is beyond the powers vested with the Bar Council of M.P. And in formulating the election Guidelines/Rules, illegality has been committed. Inviting my attention to sub Section 4 of Section 3 of the Advocates Act, 1961, it was argued by Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Counsel, that the only authority contemplated under law and empowered to enact the rules for disqualification is the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Council is not authorized to prescribe the disqualification for contesting the election.