LexBAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND ANR. ETC. versus SURJEET SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G 946 BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND ANR. ETC. v. SURJEET SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. May 1, 1980 [N. L. UNTWALIA, V. D. Tul.ZAPURKAR AND A. P. SEN, JI.] Bar Council of Delhi Election Rules 1968 Rule 3(i) ·validity of-JUJViiic-" tion of the High Court under Article 226-Alfernative remedy no bar-Rig'ltt to vote and right to stand for election-Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel allll principle of approbation and reprobation. In the year 1978, a proviso wa< added to "Rule 3(j) of the Bar Council of Delhi Flection Rules, 1968 with the approval of the Bar Couucil of India in accordance with the requirement of Sub-section (3) of section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961. In accordance with that proviso a copy of the decla- ration form was sent on 14th June, 1978 to the Advocates whose names found place in the State roll of Advocates asking them to return the declaration form duly filled up and signed within the specified period. A publication to this effect was also made in some newspapers viz. Hindustan Times, Indian Express, Statesman etc. The last extended date for the submission of the declaration" forms was 14th September, 1978 and the electoral 'roll was finally" pub- lished on the 16th September, 1978 excluding the names of about 2,000 Advo- cates who had failed ro submit such declaration forms. On the besis of the electoral roll so prepared, elections to tho Bar Council of Delhi was held on the 17th November, 1978. The total number of advocates on the Advocates roll was 5,000 and odd out of which the names of about 3,000 and odd only were included in the electoral roll in accordance with the proviso to Rule 3 (j) of the Election Rules of the Bar Council of Delhi. The re!ults of the election were declared on the 19th November, 1978. The names of lhe 15 persons Who were declared elected were published in the Gazette on the 22ild November, 1978. Thereafter the respondents in these appeals filed writ petitions challenging the whole election by attacking the validity of the pro- viso to Rule 3(j). The Delhi High Court allowed the three writ petitions taking the view, (i) so for as the qualifications to be possessed by and the conditions to be satisfied by an advocate before being brought on to the Electoral Roll was concerned only the Bar Council of. India has the competence to make the rules under section 3(4) and section 49(1)(a) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and· the State Bar Council has no power at. all to make o. rule on this subject; (ii) the plea of estoppel against Surjeet Singh does not arise, (ill) nmt in- justice has been done to the petitioners because more than 2000 advocates were wrongfully disqualified being brought on the Electoral Roll. Thi.! has materially affected the result of the elections; and (iv) Rule 3(j) of the Bar Council of Delhi Election Rules, 1968 is in excess of the roles making power of Bar Council of Delhi. H Dismissing the appeals by special leave the Court, HEID : 1. The impugned proviso to Rule 3(j) of the Delhi B!ll Comu:IV bf Electiop.. Rules is ultra vires and invalid 3.nd the. electoml roll prepared by t l ' I ~ \ . . • J ) _,.. .. • BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI V. SURJEET SINGH 947 the Delhi Bar Council o~ the basis of the same resulting in the exclusion o! the names of about 2000 advocates from the said roll was not valid in lMV. [958!}.E] (b) The whole election was invalid on that account and it could be chal- lenged as such in a writ petition. It was not a case of challenging the pre- paration of the electoral roll on the factual basis of wrong exclusion of a few namei. For the said purpose Rule 4 occurring in Chapter I of the Bar Cotmcil of India Rules could come into play. But here, because of the in- validity of the Rules itself, the preparation of the electoral roll was completely vitiated-a matter which cannot be put within the narrow limit of the said rule. [958E-F] However, it depends upon the nature and the intensity of the error com- mitted in the preparation of the electoral. roll and its effect on the whole election for deciding the question as to whether a writ petition wonld be maintainable or not. [862E-F] Chief Commissioner, Aimer v. Radhey Shyam Dani, [1957] S.C.R. 68; Parme1hwar Mahaseth and Ors. v. 1 State of Bihar and Ors., AIR 1958 Patna 149; Umakant Singh and Ors. v. Binda Choudhary and Ors., AIR 1965 Patna A B c 459; D<v Prakash Balmukand v. Babu Ram Rewti Mal and O
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.