Dismissed

Sri Sadashiva Reddy Y R v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2021WP/21250/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 226 Constitution of India challenging resolutions of Bar Council of India regarding election timelines. Court disposed of petition as Respondent agreed to review resolutions in General Council meeting with petitioner invited to participate.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed off; costs made easy; future challenges to the outcome of the BCI meeting reserved.

Sri Sadashiva Reddy Y R Vs the Union of India — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.21250 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SADASHIVA REDDY Y R S/O Y.R. RAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS MEMBER OF KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL AND MEMBER OF BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA R/AT NO. 118, 2^ND FLOOR CUBBON PET MAIN ROAD, AVENUE ROAD CROSS BANGALORE 560002

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. MAHAMAD TAHIR A, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, 3^RD FLOOR, ‘C’ WING, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI 110003 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA NO.21, ROUSE AVENUE INSTITUTIONAL AREA NEAR LAL BHAWAN NEW DELHI 110002 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

( BY SRI. B PRAMOD, CGC FOR R1;

¶16

SRI. RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL,

¶17

¶18

A/W SMT. IRFANA NAZEER FOR R2)

¶19

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE R-2 BCI IN THE MEETING DTD 19.11.2021 ON SUBJECT IN ITEM NO.534/2021 VIDE ANNX-AJ AND NOTICE DTD 22.11.2021 VIDE ANNX-K AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BCI TO NOTIFY AND HOLD THE MEETING FOR THE ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN, VICE-CHAIRMAN AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ETC., ON DTD 16/17 APRIL 2022 OR ON SUCH OTHER DATE WHEN THE TENURE TWO(2) YEARS OF THE PRESENT CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN EXPIRES

¶20

THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Petitioner, a senior advocate of repute and a Member of Bar Council of India, has knocked at the doors of Writ Court with the following prayers in his Petition as amended vide order dated 8.12.2021:

¶23

“(a) Writ in the nature of “Certiorari” quashing the resolution passed by the respondent No.2 BCI in the meeting dated 19.11.2021 on subject at Serial No.14 in item No.534/2021 at Vide Annexure-J and notice No.BCI:D:5136/2021 dated 22.11.2021 at Annexure-K.

¶24

a(i) A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned resolution dated 28.10.2017 under item No.351/2017 and resolution dated 10.11.2019 under Item No.395/2019 passed by Respondent No.2 at Annexure-L & L1.

¶25

(b) Writ in the nature of “Mandamus” directing the Respondent No.2 BCI to notify and hold the meeting for the election of the Chairman, ViceChairman and executive committee members etc., on date 16/17 April 2022 or on such other date

¶26

¶27

when the tenure two (2) years of the present Chairman and Vice Chairman expires.

¶28

(c) Writ in the nature of “Mandamus” directing Respondent No.2 BCI to hold the election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman etc., with as the only subject in the agenda and no other subjects shall be listed in the agenda for the said election meeting.

¶29

(d) Writ in the nature of “Mandamus” directing the respondent No.2 – BCI to issue meeting notice of election of Chairman and Vicechairman minimum 15 days with the agenda attached to the notice to all the members including the ex-officio members.

¶30

(e) Such other Writ or order or direction as deemded fit under the circumstances of the case including an order for costs.”

¶31

This Court vide ex parte ad interim order dated

¶32

25.11.2021 had interdicted the election in question that was

¶33

scheduled to be held on 04.12.2021 pursuant to the subject Resolutions and in terms of notice in question; after service of notice, the respondent BCI having entered appearance through its Panel Counsel, has filed the Statement of Objections resisting the petition; it has also filed an application for vacating the interim order, presumably in the light of some facilitative observations made by a Division Bench of this Court while rejecting its challenge to the above

¶34

¶35

interim order in W.A.No.1326/2021 disposed off on

¶36

04.12.2021.

¶37

The matter was extensively argued by both the learned Senior Advocates appearing for the parties on the previous occasion; this day, learned Advocate on record appearing for the Respondent-BCI has moved a Memo dated 17.12.2021 which reads as under:

¶38

MEMO

¶39

“The Counsel for Respondent No.2 humbly submits as follows:

¶40

1. That, vide Resolutions dated 28.10.2017 and 10.11.2019, the Respondent No.2 passed a unanimous decision to hold elections of the posts of Chairman, Vice Chairman and 9 executive Committee members of its General Council, in the following manner:

¶41

i. Elections shall be held in advance, i.e., in the month of December and the officers so elected would take charge in April of the following year.

¶42

ii. Any Member/Voter, if is unable to attend the meeting can send his opinion/vote in writing through a letter in sealed envelope which will be opened at the time of counting of votes by the Returning Officer (R.O).

¶43

2. Pursuant to the above, vide Resolution dated 19.11.2021, the Respondent No.2 scheduled the election meeting for the term of 2022 to be held on 04.12.2021. However, in the obedience of the

¶44

¶45

order dated 25.11.2021, the Respondent No.2 did not hold elections on the said date. Moreover, Respondent No.2 passed a resolution dated 04.12.2021 stating that pending disposal of the present Writ Petition, all elections shall stand adjourned/postponed.

¶46

3. It is proposed that, in the interest of the institution, Respondent No.2 would call for a General Council meeting as per the Bar Council of India Rules and would reconsider the effect and validity of the Resolutions dated 28.10.2017 and 10.11.2019, in light of the Bar Council of India Rules. Accordingly, the Respondent No.2 undertakes to issue/pass appropriate notice to call upon a General Council meeting to consider the following agenda:

¶47

a. To appropriately address the issue of voting vide letters in sealed covers in the absence of rules to the same effect.

¶48

b. To decide the appropriate period for holding elections, preferably that such elections may be held proportionately in advance (similar to the manner of holding elections by representatives of both parliamentary Houses to the posts of President/Vice President of India).

¶49

c. To make appropriate provision to hold elections as the sole agenda for election meetings in the future.

¶50

4. Hence this Hon’ble court may be pleased to take the present memo on record, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶51

Learned Senior Advocate Prof. Ravivarma Kumar

¶52

appearing for the BCI submits that petitioner should be satisfied now with what is articulatedly proposed in the

¶53

¶54

Memo and that, he as a Sitting Member can participate in the envisaged BCI meeting and air his views on the subject; since the intended elections have been postponed till after the proposed exercise is undertaken, justice is meted out to the cause brought before the court; therefore he submits, the petition be disposed off.

¶55

5. Learned Senior Advocate Sri Jayakumar.S.Patil

¶56

appearing for the petitioner, per contra, argues that: the exercise proposed in the subject Memo has its own limitation regard being had to the legal framework within which the BCI has to function; what should be the election procedure for choosing the office bearers of the BCI is a matter of amendment to the BCI Rules; similarly, what should the time gap between holding of election for constituting the succeeding body/office bearers on the one hand and the expiry of the present body/office bearers on the other be, is again a matter of policy to be regulated by Rules; Mr. Patil further contends that if the impugned Resolutions are struck down, that would facilitate a fresh decision making by the BCI in the meeting contemplated in terms of subject Memo; he further suggests that after what turns out to be from the

¶57

¶58

accomplishment of the contemplated exercise in terms of Memo, the Writ Petition can be taken up for consideration, later.

¶59

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶60

and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to dispose off the Writ Petition in terms of Memo for the following reasons:

¶61

(a) The essential grievance of the petitioner is as to

¶62

there arguably being a long time gap between the holding of elections inter alia to the Offices of Chairman & Vice Chairman of the BCI and the expiry of the tenure of the officiating incumbents; the Resolutions in question being normative in character, require the holding of elections in the month of December for the succeeding office bearers, when the tenure of the incumbents is going to expire only at a distant future i.e., in the month of April of the succeeding year; the apprehension of the petitioner is as to the likely abuse of power by the quarters that be, should the December election eventually result into defeat of the present office bearers and they continue to hold office till the month of April

¶63

¶64

of the succeeding year; the provisions of the Constitution of India i.e., Articles 243-E & 243-U provide for holding of elections to the Popular Local Bodies within six months preceding the expiry of the five year statutory tenure; this is arithmetically two & a half times the tenure of the office bearers of the BCI, is true; one needs no research for arguing as to what all may happen if the time gap in question is too long i.e., five months; reason working on experience suggests that it is not desirable to have such a long gap.

¶65

(b) There is a lot of legislative wisdom in prescribing a comparatively shorter period of six months for holding the election to the Local Bodies when the electoral term is five long years; petitioner, the records reveal, had registered a sort of dissent to the policy content of the impugned normative Resolutions, in the meetings in which they came to be made; too short a period for holding the election for constituting the new office bearers is also not desirable; however, a workable solution has to be devised after making full deliberation keeping into consideration all pragmatic factors; a Writ Court cannot undertake such an exercise which essentially relates

¶66

¶67

to the domain of policy making when there is a statutory body

¶68

for doing that; be that as it may.

¶69

¶70

that the impugned Resolutions would be reviewed/revisited

¶71

in the meeting to be organized before long, and all aspects of the matter in its larger perspective would be thrashed out; even the petitioner can also participate in the said meeting as a matter of right; issues of this kind should be left to the wisdom of a high statutory body of national level namely the BCI, which comprises of learned members of the Bar drawn from almost every provincial Bar Council in the country; when the maker of the arguably fallible Resolutions assures that it would deliberate & decide on the issues in question afresh, there is no justification for this Court to doubt the same.

¶72

(d) The related submission of learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Jayakumar Patil that the BCI functions within the framework of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the BCI Rules, promulgated thereunder and therefore, it cannot formulate any policy as a binding rule of conduct in relation to election

¶73

¶74

matters, is bit difficult to agree with; section 15(2) of the 1961 Act specifically vests rule making power in the BCI itself, concerning the election of its members and office bearers; even otherwise, the BCI has every right to place its decisions/resolutions at the hands of the other authorities like the Central Government, if need be; whichever be that authority, such recommendations would be considered swiftly and with due deference; the conspectus of the matter as mentioned in the Memo largely answers the grievance aired in the writ petition; now the question of holding election would not arise till after the exercise contemplated in the Memo is accomplished; the cause of justice would be served more by disposing off this petition than by keeping it pending pointlessly; pendency is likely to be misconstrued as the Writ Court unjustifiably intending to watch the indoor business of the BCI.

¶75

In the above circumstances and in terms of the Memo

¶76

and also with the observations hereinabove made, this writ petition is disposed off, costs having been made easy.

¶77

¶78

It hardly needs to be mentioned that the persons aggrieved by the accomplishment of exercise envisaged in the Memo can lay a challenge to the outcome of the BCI meeting in accordance with law; grounds & remedies therefor, are

¶79

accordingly reserved.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

KLY/

Sri Sadashiva Reddy Y R v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sadashiva Reddy Y R v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayesha Saddiqua Vs Mr Osman Harun Hussain

Mr R Krishna Kumar Vs Sri N Rajashekar

Sri Chethan Sridhar Vs the National Cooperative Bank Ltd.

Sri L Keshavamurthy Vs Smt Promodini

Sri. Ravichandran N Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Padmini Vs the Deputy Commissioner