TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Rules 6(h) and 32(g) of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Rules were within the rule-making power of the State Bar Council or were ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961. (ii) Whether approval by the Bar Council of India under Section 15(3) validated those rules.
Issue (i): Whether Rules 6(h) and 32(g) of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Rules were within the rule-making power of the State Bar Council or were ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961.
Analysis: The power to prescribe the conditions subject to which an advocate may vote at an election to the State Bar Council, including the qualifications or disqualifications of voters and the manner of preparation and revision of electoral rolls, vests in the Bar Council of India under Section 49(1)(a). The State Bar Council's power under Section 15 is confined to election-related rules within its competence. Rule 6(h), by excluding from the electoral roll an advocate who had not paid the subscription and obtained receipt, imposed a voting condition and was therefore outside the State Bar Council's competence. Rule 32(g), by rendering a ballot invalid unless at least ten preferences were marked, had the effect of restricting the right of an enrolled voter to cast a vote even for a single candidate and was likewise a voting condition, not a mere rule on ballot validity.
Conclusion: Rules 6(h) and 32(g) were ultra vires the powers of the State Bar Council.
Issue (ii): Whether approval by the Bar Council of India under Section 15(3) validated those rules.
Analysis: Approval under Section 15(3) can give effect only to a rule that is otherwise within the State Bar Council's competence. Mere approval cannot cure a rule that is ultra vires the State Bar Council, nor can it convert such a rule into a rule made by the Bar Council of India. Since Rules 6(h) and 32(g) exceeded the State Bar Council's authority, their approval did not validate them.
Conclusion: The approval of the Bar Council of India did not validate Rules 6(h) and 32(g).
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned rules failed, and the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, leaving the High Court's conclusion on invalidity of the two rules undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: A State Bar Council cannot by its own rules prescribe conditions for entitlement to vote or disqualify voters where that field is reserved to the Bar Council of India, and approval under Section 15(3) cannot validate a rule that is otherwise ultra vires the State Bar Council's powers.
TaxTMI 
