PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA versus STATE BAR COUNCIL OF M.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 11 S.C.R. 965 · Decided: 09-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 1-1 S.C.R. 965 
PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA 
v. 
STATE BAR COUNCIL OF M.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6482 of 2011) 
AUGUST 9, 2011 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
A 
8 
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Rules - "· 121 
and 122-A -· Challenge to vires of r. 122-A, on the ground 
that s. 15 of the Advocates Act, does not contemplate the C 
framing of such Rule by State Bar Councils providing for 
removal of Chairman/Vice-Chairman by 'no confidence 
motion' - Held: Rule 122-A of the M.P. Rules contemplates 
the removal of a ChairmanNice-Chairman by a motion of no 
confidence, passed by a specific majority of the members and D 
subject to satisfaction of the conditions stated therein - It 
cannot be termed as vesting arbitrary powers in the elected 
body - Power delegated to the elected body is within the 
framework of the principal Act-s. 15, read with the other 
provisions, of the Advocates Act - Power to frame rules has 
E 
to be given a wider scope, rather than a restrictive approach 
so as to render the legislative object achievable - s. 15 which 
delegates the Bar Councils the power to frame rules to 'carry 
out the purposes of this Chapter' are of generic nature - Thus, 
the provisions of"· 121 and 122-A of the Rules are not ultra 
F 
vires of the provisions of the Advocates Act, including s. 15 
- These rules also do not suffer from the vice of excessive 
delegation - Amended Rules of the M.P. Rules received the 
approval of the Bar Council of India, parlicularly Rule 122-A 
and would not be invalidated for want of issuance of any 
notification - On facts, the Chairman of the State Bar Council G 
had lost the confidence of majority of the elected members 
and thus, Resolution to hold special meeting to consider 
requisition of 'no confidence motion' cannot be faulted with -
Advocates Act, 1961 - s.15. 
965 
H 
966 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
Object and purposes of - Explained. 
Administrative law - Delegated legislation - Guidelines 
for - Held: It is not necessary to spell out guidelines for 
delegated legislation, when discretion is vested in such 
8 
delegatee bodies - In such cases, the language of the rule 
framed as well as the purpose sought to be achieved, would 
be relevant factors to be considered by the Court. 
Doctrines/Principles - Principles of natural justice -
Applicability of, to removal of ChairmanNice-Chairman of 
C 
State Bar Council by 'no-confidence motion' - Held: Concept 
of just cause and right of hearing are not applicable to the 
elected officers where a person is so elected by majority in 
accordance with statutory rules - it also has no application to 
moving of a 'no-confidence motion in so far as these are 
D 
controlled by specific provisions and are not arbitrary or 
unreasonable. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Election' - Meaning of - Held: Expression 'election' 
E 
includes the whole procedure of election and is not confined 
to final result - Rejection or acceptance of nomination paper 
is included in the said expression. 
The election to the State Bar Council were held and 
F 
'N' was elected as Member and then Chairman of the 
State Bar Council by its members. After the expiry of 2% 
years, fresh elections were held and 'N' was again 
elected as member, and then the Chairman of the State 
Bar Council by its members. After issuance of notice in 
G accordance with the State Bar Council Madhya Pradesh 
Rules, the General Body Meeting of the State Bar Council 
was held on 27th March, 2011. Requisitions were made 
relating to a 'no confidence motion' against the Chairman/ 
Vice-Chairman, and that there should be re-election of the 
Committees. The minutes were recorded. It was also 
H 
PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL 967 
OF M.P. & ORS. 
stated that the ChairmanNice-Chairman had offered their A 
resignation subject to withdrawal of 'no ·confidence 
motion'. It was resolved that the agenda of the special 
meeting would be circulated on the same day itself, by 
post, to all the members of the State Bar Council, whether 
present at the meeting or not and the next meeting would 
B 
be held on 16th April, 2011. These notices were issued. 
The meeting was held on 16th April, 2011. During the 
course of the meeting on 16th April 2011, some of the 
members left the meeting. The Advocate General of 
Madhya Pradesh presided over the continuation of the c 
meeting and the no-confidence motion against both the 
Chairman and the Vice Chairman was passed by maj
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.