The Allahabad High Court recently stayed Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh's order for formation of a new Elders Committee to oversee the elections of Ekikrit Bar Association, Mati Kanpur Dehat..Justice Kshitij Shailendra found the order passed by Bar Council Chairman to be contrary to earlier High Court rulings pertaining to the statutory's body's powers over bar association elections."This Court is of the prima facie opinion that placing reliance upon previous decisions, coupled with interpretation of Section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961 read with other provisions including Bar Council of U.P. Election Rules, 1992 framed under Section 15(2) of the Advocates Act, at least two Division Benches, as noted above, have held that Chairman of Bar Council has no power or authority to decide the issue of constitution of Elders Committee or issue a direction for holding elections of the office bearers of a Bar Association," it said. .The order was passed on January 29 on a petition filed by the Elders Committee of the Ekikrit Bar Association, Mati Kanpur Dehat. Pertinently, the elections of the bar body were held on January 28.Notably, a Special Bench was convened to hear the matter on a day declared as local holiday for Mauni Amavasya..It was submitted before the Court that the Bar Council on January 12 appointed an observer for the elections.However, a few days before the polling, the Chairman recalled the order, citing disputes over the Elders Committee. The Chairman then ordered constitution of a new Elders Committee and holding of elections under the supervision of the Observers of the Bar Council.The incumbent Elders Committee in the plea before the Court alleged that that the decision was taken without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing.The counsel representing the petitioners sought a stay on the Bar Council Chairman's order, arguing that in case the same was allowed to stand, a situation would arise where a new Elders Committee would be formed and a new election would be held..On the other hand, the counsel representing the Bar Council, appearing through a video call, argued that the statutory body acted as per the Model Bye-laws and in in exercise of powers under Section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961. It was submitted that only a direction was issued to the President/ Secretary of Bar Association to constitute a new Elders Committee as per the Model Bye-laws and then hold elections..The Court rejected the argument that Model Bye-laws had come into existence conferring statutory powers upon a Bar Council to ensure proper constitution of Elders Committee and to issue other allied directions.It ruled that the entry exercise of recalling the earlier order and then directing constitution of a news Elders Committee was contrary to the earlier decisions of the High Court."This Court is of the prima facie opinion in this case that once an election schedule was notified in December, 2024 and elections were held on 28.01.2025 in respect whereof, as per the election schedule, even the nomination papers were scrutinized and certain un-opposed declaration was also made on 20.01.2025 pursuant to the order dated 12.01.2025 issued by the Chairman, Bar Council of U.P. himself, which was confined only to provide Observers to supervise holding of elections on 28.01.2025, recalling his own order on 19.01.2025 entertaining an application filed by certain persons including the respondent no.3, without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, further, issuing certain directions as regards formation of a new Elders Committee and holding of another elections and, further, restraining the existing Elders Committee, terming the same to be disputed" as regards election, appears to be contrary to the verdict of the Division Benches, as referred above.".The Court thus stayed the Bar Council order, reasoning that the same would create complications for the newly elected body."Once elections have already been held and parties aggrieved by the elections have statutory right to approach appropriate forum, in case the order impugned is allowed to stand, for intervening period during the pendency of the writ petition, it would create further complications and would cause interference in the functions to be performed by an elected body."It will hear the matter next on March 24..Advocate Dharmendra Singh with advocates Anil Kumar and Dileep Srivastava appeared for petitioner.Standing Counsel Surya Bhan Singh with advocate Akhilesh Kumar represented the State.Advocate Ashok Kumar Tiwari represented the State Bar Council..[Read Order]
