Delhi High Court stays BCI's ouster of Uttar Pradesh Bar Council representative

The Delhi High Court on Monday stayed a decision of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to remove advocate Shrinath Tripathi from the post of member representative of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (BCUP) in the BCI. .Justice Sachin Datta stayed the BCI resolution after noting that it appeared to have been passed without following the prescribed procedure. “The procedure does not appear to have been adhered to. There is no resolution by the BCI. The whole thing has been done in rampant disregard to the procedure for bringing about such a resolution. I will pass the order, I am staying the order,” the Court remarked. .The case will be heard next in September..A detailed order is awaited..In January 2025, the BCUP moved a no-confidence motion against Tripathi, accusing him of not conducting mandatory meetings for several years, of not disbursing welfare funds to sick advocates and of making derogatory statements against State Bar Council members in meetings and on social media. This resolution was approved by the BCI in April 2025, which also proceeded to remove Tripathi from BCI membership. Tripathi has challenged this move before the High Court on allegations that it was an act of malice. He has alleged that he has been targeted because he wishes to contest for the post of BCI Chairman in the upcoming elections. “In an act of clear malice, the BCI vide the Impugned Order purposefully relied on BCUP resolution dated 18.01.2025 in violation of its own notification dated 14.08.2020 to the extent that only a recommendation could have been brought by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to the BCI,” he contended. .Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Tripathi before the High Court yesterday.Sibal argued that Tripathi had been illegally removed from the BCI without any show cause notice, hearing or inquiry, which is required under the BCI rules. “A motion of no-confidence can be brought only on proved misconduct. It cannot be moved by the State Bar Council but only by the BCI. A prior 30-days’ notice has to be given to the person against whom the no confidence motion is proposed to be moved. Thereafter, an enquiry has to be conducted on the allegations,” he submitted. Tripathi has urged the Court to quash his removal from the BCI and reinstate him. .Meanwhile, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the BCI, stated that Tripathi concealed that he had earlier acknowledged his actions and filed an apology. Therefore, the procedure cited by him does not need to be followed, the ASG said. A review plea against the Bar Council's decision is pending, he added. .However, the Court was not satisfied. It asked how the decision could have been taken without following the procedure.“Where is the resolution of the Bar Council? Where is the no-confidence motion? Where is the subsequent notice to him? What about the further enquiry? I want to check if the procedure was followed. Can I sanction the wholesale disregard to procedure?” asked Justice Datta. .During the hearing, Sibal also stated that the BCI Chairman tried to dissuade him from taking up this case. "He [Manan Kumar Mishra] rang me up saying not to take his case. I can reveal this in public. You want to go public, I can go public," he said.Sibal made the claims following a submission by ASG Sharma that the senior counsel's appearance for Tripathi is an indication of 'something'. "The very fact that my friend [Sibal] is there is a giveaway that the case is something," the ASG had said. Earlier, the Court had also asked Sibal about what was special about the case. .Briefing counsel Abhik Chimni with advocates Pranjal Abrol, Gurupal Singh also appeared for Tripathi.