Election eligibility rules for Bar Council contests may be framed by a Special Committee, subject to statutory approval requirements.

The Madras High Court analysed the scope of rule-making under the Advocates Act, 1961 and treated the power under Section 15 as wide and concurrent between the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils for matters within Chapter II. It held that a Special Committee acting under Section 8-A could frame election rules prescribing eligibility conditions and disqualifications for contesting State Bar Council elections, including minimum practice, proof of practice, contempt, disciplinary proceedings, criminal charges involving moral turpitude, and political office, so long as the rules fit the statutory scheme. The Court also noted that such rules would operate subject to the requisite approval of the Bar Council of India where required.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Special Committee constituted under Section 8-A of the Advocates Act, 1961 had the competence to amend the State Bar Council election rules by prescribing eligibility conditions and disqualifications for contesting the election, and whether the impugned amendments were ultra vires, arbitrary, or invalid for want of approval by the Bar Council of India.

Analysis: The rule-making power under Section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961 was held to be wide and concurrent between the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils for carrying out the purposes of Chapter II and the functions of the State Bar Councils. Section 49 of the Act was treated as an enabling provision conferring similar power on the Bar Council of India, but the absence of a specific rule framed by the Bar Council of India did not denude the State Bar Council of its power to frame rules within its sphere. The Court distinguished the authorities dealing with disqualification of voters, holding that those decisions did not control rules prescribing eligibility for contesting elections. Applying a purposive construction, the Court concluded that rules prescribing a minimum continuous practice of ten years, proof of actual practice through vakalatnamas, and disqualifications based on contempt, disciplinary proceedings, criminal charges involving moral turpitude, and political office were within the permissible field of regulation and were neither arbitrary nor illegal. The Court further held that the Special Committee, functioning in place of the State Bar Council under Section 8-A, could exercise the relevant powers, though the rules would operate only upon approval by the Bar Council of India under Sections 15(3) and 28(3).

Conclusion: The Special Committee had the competence to frame the impugned eligibility rules, and the challenge to the amendments failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed, while the amended rules were left to operate only subject to approval by the Bar Council of India.

Ratio Decidendi: A State Bar Council or Special Committee acting in its place may, under the Advocates Act, 1961, frame election rules prescribing eligibility and disqualifications for contesting membership of the Council, provided the rules remain within the statutory scheme and secure the requisite approval where required.

---