TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court invalidates State Bar Council Rules on voting eligibility, affirms Bar Council of India's exclusive power</h1> <h3>The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Versus Manubhai Paragji Vashi and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that Rule 6(h) and Rule 32(g) of the State Bar Council Rules were ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961. ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of Rule 6(h) of the State Bar Council Rules.2. Validity of Rule 32(g) of the State Bar Council Rules.3. Powers of the State Bar Council vs. Bar Council of India.Summary:1. Validity of Rule 6(h) of the State Bar Council Rules:The Supreme Court examined whether Rule 6(h) of the State Bar Council Rules, which mandates that an advocate must pay a subscription to be included in the Electoral Roll, was within the powers of the State Bar Council. The High Court had declared Rule 6(h) ultra vires Section 49(1)(a) of the Advocates Act, 1961, as it encroached upon the powers of the Bar Council of India. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the Bar Council of India has the exclusive power to prescribe conditions for voting eligibility, including subscription payments, under Section 49(1)(a) of the Act. Consequently, Rule 6(h) was deemed ultra vires, although the same provision in the Bar Council of India Rules necessitated the deletion of non-paying advocates from the Electoral Roll.2. Validity of Rule 32(g) of the State Bar Council Rules:The Supreme Court analyzed Rule 32(g) of the State Bar Council Rules, which invalidates a voting paper if less than ten preferences are marked. The High Court had found this rule ultra vires, as it conflicted with Rule 1, Chapter I, Part III of the Bar Council of India Rules, which entitles every advocate on the Electoral Roll to vote. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that Rule 32(g) effectively disenfranchises advocates who do not mark ten preferences, thus infringing on their voting rights. The Court referenced its previous judgment in Shradha Devi v. Krishna Chandra Pant, which held that indicating preferences beyond the first is optional. Therefore, Rule 32(g) was beyond the State Bar Council's powers under Section 15(2)(a) of the Act and was declared ultra vires.3. Powers of the State Bar Council vs. Bar Council of India:The Supreme Court clarified the distinct powers of the State Bar Council and the Bar Council of India. Under Section 15 of the Advocates Act, the State Bar Council can make rules for the election of its members and the preparation and revision of Electoral Rolls, but it cannot prescribe conditions for voting eligibility, which is the prerogative of the Bar Council of India under Section 49(1)(a). The Court emphasized that approval by the Bar Council of India does not validate ultra vires rules made by the State Bar Council, as established in Bar Council of Delhi v. Surjeet Singh.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the High Court's judgment that Rules 6(h) and 32(g) of the State Bar Council Rules were ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court reiterated that the Bar Council of India holds the exclusive authority to prescribe voting conditions, and any conflicting rules by the State Bar Council are invalid.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
