State Bar Council term extension must be approved before expiry; expired council cannot conduct elections without valid statutory continuation.

Where the Advocates Act and Bar Council of India Rules prescribe that extension of a State Bar Council's term must be approved before expiry, a resolution by circulation is ineffective unless majority approval is obtained within time; later confirmation cannot cure the defect. Once the term expired without a valid extension, the statutory scheme required the Bar Council of India to constitute a Special Committee to perform the Council's functions and conduct elections, so the expired Council lacked jurisdiction to hold elections. The election process therefore had to proceed under the Special Committee mechanism.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the extension of the State Bar Council's term under Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules was valid when majority approval was not obtained before expiry of the original term. (ii) Whether the State Bar Council retained jurisdiction to conduct the elections after the expiry of its term and in the absence of a valid extension under Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the extension of the State Bar Council's term under Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules was valid when majority approval was not obtained before expiry of the original term.

Analysis: Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961 fixes the term of an elected State Bar Council member at five years and permits extension by the Bar Council of India only before expiry of that term. Rule 6 of the Bar Council of India Rules permits urgent business to be transacted by circulation, but only when the proposed action is agreed to by a majority of the members, after which the action so taken is to be placed before the next meeting for confirmation. The circulating resolution did not result in any completed action before the term expired, since majority approval had not been obtained by that date. Mere circulation and later confirmation could not substitute for the statutory requirement that action be taken in the prescribed manner.

Conclusion: The purported extension was invalid and did not operate to extend the term retrospectively.

Issue (ii): Whether the State Bar Council retained jurisdiction to conduct the elections after the expiry of its term and in the absence of a valid extension under Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Analysis: Once the original term expired without a valid extension, Section 8A of the Advocates Act, 1961 became operative and the Bar Council of India was bound to constitute a Special Committee to discharge the functions of the State Bar Council and hold elections. The statutory scheme is imperative and does not permit the expired Council to continue exercising election-related jurisdiction. Applying the settled principle that where a statute prescribes a manner for doing an act, it must be done in that manner or not at all, the elections held by the expired Council lacked jurisdictional foundation.

Conclusion: The State Bar Council had no jurisdiction to conduct the elections, and the elections were invalid.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the election process was directed to proceed through a Special Committee under the statutory framework.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute prescribes a specific mode for doing an act, that mode must be followed strictly; a resolution by circulation does not amount to valid action unless the statutory preconditions for such action are satisfied, and an invalid or incomplete step cannot be retrospectively validated by later confirmation.

---