SAILENDRA KUMAR Vs. CHAIRMAN BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein is a practising advocate and a voter entitled to vote at the election held for the purpose of electing members of the Bihar State Bar Council. He has challenged the constitutional validity of Sub section 3 of Section 8A of the Advocates Act (as amended) on the ground that the aforesaid provisions vest arbitrary and unguided power in the Bar Council of India to constitute a Special Committee for an indefinite period, thereby depriving the members of the Bar from electing their representatives its members of the Bihar State Bar Council for an indefinite period. The petitioner has further impugned the resolution of the Bar Council of India dated 13th February 1994 us also the letter of the Bar Council of India dated 11.4.1994, informing the Secretary ol the Bar Council of Bihur that the Bar Council of India had extended for six months i.e., with effect 7.2.1994, the term of the Bar Council of the State which expired on 7th Feb., 1994. He has prayed that the Special Committee constituted under Section 8 of the Act be directed to hold election de novo to the Bihar State Bar Council, and not merely to continue and complete the process initiated by the defunct Bar Council of the State. It is claimed that The action taken by the erstwhile Bar Council of the State have no legal sanctity, and therefore the Special Committee appointed under Section 8A of the Act should hold the election afresh.

(2.) AT the very outset, counsel for the petitioner stated that this matter should not be treated as adversary litigation. The petitioner was. only interested in getting the law declared for the benefit of all concerned, so that it may provide guidance for the future.

(3.) IT appears that though a request was sent to the Bar Council of India for extension of the term of the Bihar State Bar Council for a period of six months vide letter dated 27.1.1994 no response was received from the Bar Council of India. Consequently, the term of the elected members of the Bar Council of the State came to an end on the expiry of the term of five years on 7.2.1994. However, the Secretary of the Bar Council of the State received a communication from the Secretary of the Bar Council dated 27.1.1994 and informing him that the Bar Council of India had considered the request of the Bihar State Bar Council for extension of term in its meeting held in the month of February, 1994, and that the term of the Bar Council of the State had been extended for six month with effect from the date of expiry of the term of five years i.e. 7.2.1994. It further appears from Annexure 1 that a copy of the relevant extracts from the minutes of the meeting of the Bar Council of India dated 13.2.1994, was communicated by the Bar Council of India to the State Bar Council as late as on 23.7.1994 i.e. more than five months later. This led the petitioner to doubt that the resolution said to have been passed on 13.2.1994 wtis not a genuine one. Consequently, we had to request the counsel for the Bar Council of India to produce before us the aforesaid resolution in original for our perusal. The minute book was produced before us and we have satisfied ourselves that the aforesaid resolution was actually passed by the Bar Council of India on 13.2.1994. The petitioner had also not challenged the genuiness of theresolution during the course of argument.