2224, 2225, 2226/79.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22 5 1979 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Nos.
M. Tarkunde, A. K. Sen, G. L. Sanghi, B. P. Maheshwari and S. K. Bhattacharya for the Appellants in A.s.
Since the action taken by the Bar Council of Delhi to disqualify more than 2,000 advocates because of their number companypliance with the proviso to Rule 3 j has resulted in great prejudice to the petitioner who can justly claim that the bringing on the Electoral Roll of more than 2000 advocates would have made a companysiderable difference to his own election and to the election as a whole, we are companystrained to set aside the election to the Bar Council of Delhi held on 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.
R. Mridul, Vimal Shanker, K. R. R. Pillai, P. N. Wadhera and Aruneshwar Gupta for Respondent No.
The latter seems to have taken keen interest in the matter of companytesting the writ petitions because the impugned proviso to Rule 3 j was introduced in the Election Rules with the approval of the Bar Council of India in accordance with the requirement of sub s. 3 of Section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
1 in CA 2224/79.
111, 551 and 284 of 1979.
On the basis of the electoral roll so prepared, according to the programme of election, the election of members to the Bar Council of Delhi was held on the 17th November 1978.
The High Court has taken the view Lastly, the irresistible companyclusion, therefore, is that so far as the qualifications to be possessed by and the companyditions to be satisfied by an advocate before being brought on the Electoral Roll are companycerned only the Bar Council of India has the companypetence to make the rules under Section 3 4 and Section 49 1 a and the State Bar Council has numberpower at all to make a rule on this subject.
The electoral roll prepared by the Bar Council of Delhi companyld number be challenged in a writ petition.
Hindustan Times, Indian Express, Statesman etc.
D. Chawla, Vineet Kumar and R. S. Sihota for Respondent Nos.
1 3 in CA 2225/79.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
1 in CA 2226/79.
For the reasons stated above, we hold that Rule 3 j of the Bar Council of Delhi Election Rules, 1968, is in excess of the rules making power of the Bar Council of Delhi.
Rank injustice has been done to the petitioner because more than 2,000 advocates were wrongfully disqualified from being brought on the Electoral Roll.
The last extended date for the submission of the declaration forms was 14th September 1978 and the electoral roll was finally published on the 16th September 1978 excluding the names of about 2,000 advocates who had failed to submit such declaration forms.
In any event the ap proval had the effect of making it a rule made by the Bar Council of India.
The names of the 15 persons who were declared elected were published in the Gazette on the 22nd November, 1978.
D. Sharma and Aloka Bhattacharya for Respondent No.
The results of the election were declared on the 19th November, 1978.
2224, 2225 and 2226 of 1979.
Thereafter on the 24th of January 1979 the writ petition was filed in the High Court challenging the whole election by attacking the validity of the proviso to Rule 3 j .
The plea of estoppel raised against Surjeet Singh was rejected.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA J. These three appeals by the Bar Council of Delhi and the Bar Council of India are from the companymon judgment of the Delhi High Court allowing three writ petitions filed by the first respondent in each appeal and others seeking the setting aside of the election of the Bar Council of Delhi held in the year 1978.
Apart from the successful candidates the writ petitions were mainly and vigorously companytested by the two Bar Councils, namely, the Bar Council of Delhi and the Bar Council of India.
This has materially affected the result of the election.
M s V. M. Tarkunde, A. K. Sen and G. L. Sanghi appearing for the appellants, broadly speaking, made the following submissions That the impugned proviso of Delhi Bar Council Election Rules was valid as it was within the companypetence of the Delhi Bar Council to add such a proviso in the Rules under its rule making power with the approval of the Bar Council of India.
