LexBABU VERGHESE AND ORS. versus BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
BABU VERGHESE AND ORS. A - .A - v. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA AND ORS. MARCH 16, 1999 [S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] B Advocates Act, 1961-Section &4. and 10-A-Temi of office of State Bar Council-Extension under proviso to Section &4-Held, can be granted only before the expily of its miginal tenn-1he te1m cannot be extended by way of a resolution of the Bar Council of India after the expiry of the tenn of c the State Bar Council-Any election after the expiry of temt without its having valid~v extended was invalid-Also held on facts, that urgent action initiated under Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules was not completed before the expiry of the tenn of the State Bar Council-Therefore, no action could be considered to have been taken under Rule 6, nor did the post tenn resolution D of the Bar Council of India could be considered to have confimied any such action-Thus, the Members of the State Bar Council continued in office without any valid extensio11:-Bar Council of India Rules, Rule 6. Administrative Law-Doctrine of ultra vires-Statute prescribing the doing of an act in a particular manne1Jff eld, could not be considered to E have been done unless it was done in the prescribed manner-Jurisdic- tiort-Exercise of Election-Professional Bodies-Non-compliance with statutory provisions-Effect of F ~ The term of Bar Council of Kerala was to expire on 27.1.1997, but ;. before the expiry of the term, it approached the Bar Council of India (BCI) for extension of its term by six months under proviso to Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Though no meeting for extension of term was held by the BCI before 27 .1.1997 as requested by the State Bar Council, on 13.1.1997, G the Chairman of BCI purporting to act under Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules got a draft resolution circulated to 18 members for sending their opinion as to whether or not the proposed extension should be granted. -~ Before 27.11.1997 only 4 members sent their opinion, the other 4 sent it after this date. Later on, the BCI in its meeting dated 8.2.1997 formally extended the term of the State Bar Council for 6 months. During this extended term H 1121 1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 1 S.C.R. A the State Bar Council conducted election and counting of votes was com- pleted on 3.4.1997. The elections were challenged before the High Court, inter alia, on the ground, that the term of the State Bar Council having expired OJll 27 .1.1997, it had ceased to have any jurisdiction to conduct the elections. The High Court held that the term of the State Bar Council would be treated to have been extended by the BCI before-the expiry of its original term. Hence B /this appeal. It was contended by the appellant that the election after the expiry of the term of the State Bar Council was no election as it ceased to exist and consequently it had ceased to have any jurisdiction for conducting a fresh C election. It was also contended that the extension of the term of the State Bar Council by the BCI byway of a resolution passed on 8.2.1997 would not have the effect extending the term with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 27.1.1997. It was further contended that the elections were not held as contemplated under Section SA (3) of the Advocates Act through a Special Committee and hence any election held by the State of Bar Council was a nullity. D It was contended by the respondents that the term was deemed to have been extended on 13.1.1997, the date on which the Resolution for extending the term was circulated to all the 18 members of the BCI although the entire resolution may have been passed on 8.2.1997. E Allowing the appeal, this Coutt HELD: 1.1. A reading of Sections 8 andS-A of the Advocates Act, 1961 clearly indicates that extension has to be granted before expiry of the original term so as to maintain continuity of the term. In the present case, process for granting extension was initiated on 13.1.1997 by circulating a F draft resolution to the members of Bar Council of India under Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules which contemplates 'urgent action' being taken on the opinion of majority members. It is this 'action' which is required to be confirmed in the next meeting. It is obvious that if no action is taken, the question of confirmation does not arise. (1136-H] G 1.2. Though 'action' under Rule 6 was initiated on 13.1.1997 yet it was not completed before 27.1.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.