https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279356 Rules 6(h) and 32(g) of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Rules were held beyond the State Bar Council's rule-making power because they imposed voting conditions reserved to the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961. Rule 6(h) disqualified an advocate from the electoral roll for non-payment of subscription, and Rule 32(g) invalidated a ballot unless at least ten preferences were marked; both were treated as voting conditions, not mere election mechanics. Approval by the Bar Council of India under Section 15(3) could not cure a rule that was already ultra vires. The challenge failed and the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed. en-us Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Mar 2019 10:34:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279356 Rules 6(h) and 32(g) of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa Rules were held beyond the State Bar Council's rule-making power because they imposed voting conditions reserved to the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961. Rule 6(h) disqualified an advocate from the electoral roll for non-payment of subscription, and Rule 32(g) invalidated a ballot unless at least ten preferences were marked; both were treated as voting conditions, not mere election mechanics. Approval by the Bar Council of India under Section 15(3) could not cure a rule that was already ultra vires. The challenge failed and the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279356