This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, has been filed by a practicing Advocate of this High Court who has been enrolled in 1995. The name of the petitioner has been registered at Serial No. A/S-1600 in the Advocates' Roll prepared by the Registrar General of this Court. Her name is borne on the voters' list for the ensuing elections of the High Court Bar Association.
On 3 April 2014, the General Body of the High Court Bar Association adopted a resolution to hold elections for the Executive Committee on 19 May 2014 as the term of the Executive Committee was to come to an end on 4 April 2014. Subscriptions of advocates were to be paid by 25 April 2014 for the period up to 31 June 2014. Under the provisions of of the Rules of the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad ( "the Rules"), the meeting of the Annual General Body of the High Court Bar Association Association ("the Association") has to be convened at least a month before the expiry of the term of the office bearers by fixing a date for election. Under Rule 18, the office bearers of the Association and members of the Governing Council are to hold office for a period of one year from the date of the election, though in extraordinary circumstances, they may continue for a further period of one month with the prior approval of the Elders' Committee. Within this period, elections have to be completed, failing which the administration of the Association is to vest in the Elders' Committee. The Elders' Committee as defined in Rule 4 (c) is a body which is constituted under Rule 8, to consist of five designated senior most members of the Association actively practicing in the High Court at Allahabad. On 10 April 2014, two learned senior Advocates, Shri V.P. Srivastava and Shri S.M.A. Kazmi were appointed as Returning Officers. On 11 April 2014, the schedule for the election was notified. An objection was received by the Elders' Committee from Dr. C.P. Upadhyay, a member of the Association to the effect that the voters' list had not been prepared in accordance with the Rules. The submission which was urged before the Elders' Committee was that under Rule 5 (d), an ordinary member is required to be an advocate on the rolls of the High Court, regularly practicing in the High Court. Reliance was placed on the provision of Rule 4(d) and Rule 7(d) in support of the submission that unless an advocate is regularly practicing in the High Court as defined in Rule 4(h), he or she would not be entitled to be an ordinary member or to vote at the election. The Chairperson of the Elders' Committee issued a direction rejecting the submission and has come to the conclusion that despite the fact that certain members of the Association have been shown to be disqualified in the voters' list prepared by the Association which has been supplied to the Returning Officers because their names are not to be found in the roll of Advocates maintained by the High Court, they would be entitled to vote. The conclusion which has been arrived at by the Elders' Committee is as follows:
"... In the opinion of the Elders' Committee the members of the Association who have been shown to be disqualified in that list because, according to that list their names are not to be found in the list of the Roll of the Advocates maintained in the High Court, should be accepted as entitled to vote. It will be for the Association to amend, modify or correct its list, if it becomes necessary to do so on account of the absence of their names in the Roll of the High Court. So long that has not been done the existence of their names in the roll of the Association shall have to be accepted as a valid basis for their right to vote."
In these proceedings, the petitioner seeks to challenge the decision of the Elders' Committee dated 7 May 2014. Besides, the petitioner seeks a direction for setting aside the tentative list of voters published on 5 May 2014 and seeks the preparation of a fresh list of voters of those members who are entitled to cast their votes in view of the provisions contained in Rule 4(d) of the Rules.
At the hearing of these proceedings, we have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court Bar Association, the Elders' Committee and the Returning Officers both of whom have fairly assisted the Court. We have also, having due regard to the fact that the issue pertains to the interest of the Bar as well as to the interest of the institution of this Court, permitted intervention during the course of the proceedings.
The principal issue which falls for decision turns on the interpretation of the Rules of the High Court Bar Association.
The Association is a society registered under the Societies' Registration Act, 1860 and is to consist of all office bearers and members of the Governing Council as well as the General Body of the Association and those who become members under the Rules of the Association and continue to be members. Rule 3 of the Rules governing the Association contains the objects of the Association and is to the following effect:
"3. (a) To promote the development of legal science and studies and to watch legislation for the purpose of assisting in the progress of sound legislation;
(b) To safeguard and promote the interest of the legal profession and its members in general and of the Members of the Association in particular;
(c)To promote a high professional standing and standard and conduct amongst the Members of the legal profession and to check unprofessional practices;
(d) To maintain a library of legal literature and of other subjects likely to be useful to the Members of the Association;
(e) To provide a meeting place for the Members of the Association particularly for study and discussion of law;
(f) To take the notice of the Bar Council, the High Court, the Supreme Court or the Central or State Governments matter affecting the legal profession in general and the Members of the Association in particular.
Under Rule 5, the Association is to have four classes of members - (i) honorary members; (ii) life members; (iii) non-resident members; and (iv) ordinary members. The expression 'ordinary member' is defined in Rule 5(d) as follows:
"(d) Ordinary Member:- Being an Advocate on the rolls of the High Court regularly practicing in the High Court and who has been admitted by the Governing Council under Rule 7 as Ordinary Member."
The admission of members is provided for in Rule 7 which is to the following effect:
"7. (a) Any person enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh wishing to become an Ordinary Non Resident/Life Member may apply in writing to the Honorary Secretary of the Association for admission on an application prescribed in schedule I subject to the condition prescribed in Schedule II signed by him and bearing the signature of at least two ordinary members of the Association as proposer and Seconder having at least ten years of Ordinary Membership of that Association.
(b) Such person shall be entitled to hold the Ordinary Membership/Life Membership of only High Bar Association, Allahabad however; he can become Non Resident and Honorary Member of other Bar Associations. This Rule does not apply on those who became Member prior to enforcement of these Rules.
(c)Such Advocate shall file an Affidavit bearing his Photograph mentioning his Registration Number and Photostat copy of the Registration Certificate declaring on oath that he is neither at present nor in future intend to become Ordinary Member or Life Member of any other Association in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
(d) The Honorary Secretary of the Bar Association shall prepare the Roll of the Advocates regularly practicing in the High Court duly approved by the Governing Council, who alone will be entitled to be the Ordinary/Life Member of that Association.
(e) The Honorary Secretary will finalize the application and place it before the Governing Council for admission after displaying the same on the Notice Board for ten days and inviting objections by the process of Black Balls and being interviewed by the President or the Hony. Secretary.
(f) In case more than twenty Members black Ball on any name included in the applications the same be placed for consideration as under Rule-9.
(g) No person other than the one who in on the State Roll of the Bar Council will be eligible to become Ordinary/Life Member of the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad.
(h) A Non-Resident Member for the purposes of obtaining the Ordinary or Life Membership of the Association shall have to adhere the procedure prescribed for enrollment of Ordinary Member.
(i) The Advocate applying for Membership will have to pay the admission fee as well as the Membership fee as and when so decided by the General Body of the Association.
Note:- All the applicants shall have to declare that they are the Members of Bar Council of India Advocate Welfare Fund Rule 40."
Under Rule 10, a person who is admitted as ordinary member is entitled to all the privileges of membership, from the date of admission but has no right to be a candidate in the election or cast his or her vote for three years to be counted from the year next to the admission in any election of the High Court Bar Association.
The expression 'Practicing Advocate' or 'Advocate in active practice' or 'Advocate in regular practice' is defined as follows in Rule 4 (h) of the Rules:
"(h) "Practicing Advocate" or "Advocate in active practice" or "Advocate in regular practice" includes an Advocate on roll prepared by State Bar Council, who files pleadings and Vakalatnama and who does not do any other professional work other than that of an Advocate, and so registered with Registrar General of the High Court."
Under Rule 55, the procedure for elections has been specified. Rule 55 provides as follows:
"55. The Meetings of the Annual General Body of the Association will be convened at least a month before the expiry of the term of the Office Bearers and shall fix a date for Election.
The Elders' Committee will act as Panel of the Returning Officers to hold Election and be entitled to include any other Member of the Association; provided one is not contesting the Election and the result of the Election shall be declared in the Meeting of the General Body so convened by the Elders' Committee.
In order to meet the heavy burden of expenditure of the Bar Association, the Elders' Committee will also fix security money for various posts, which shall not be refundable after the nomination is filed and found valid. Only Ordinary Members, who have put in 3 years of continuous Membership will be entitled to vote and participate in the Election provided their subscription is paid till before the month in which Annual General Body Meeting is fixed.
The person, who has held Office twice, will not be entitled to contest the Elections in sequence, however, he can re-contest after a gap of one year.
Rule 17 of the Rules stipulates the qualification for all the office bearers and ordinary members of the Association. Rule 17 is to the following effect:
"17. (i) President:- An ordinary member having rendered at least twenty years of regular and active practice in the High Court, Allahabad.
(ii)Senior Vice President:- An ordinary member having rendered at least twenty years of regular and active practice in the High Court, Allahabad.
(iii) Five Vice President:- An ordinary member having rendered more than ten years of regular and active practice in the High Court, Allahabad.
(iv) Hony. Secretary:- An ordinary member having rendered more than fifteen years of regular and active practice in the High Court, Allahabad.
(v) Treasurer:- An ordinary member having rendered more than ten years of regular and active practice in the High Court, Allahabad.
(vi) Four Joint Secretaries:- An ordinary member having rendered more than five years of regular and active practice in the High Court, Allahabad.
(vii) Governing Council:- Ordinary member having rendered more than three years of regular and active practice in the High Court, Allahabad."
The essential requirement for participating in the election to the Executive Committee is ordinary membership of at least three continuous years. Under Rule 55, only a member who has put in three years of continuous membership as an ordinary member is entitled to vote and participate in the election provided his subscription is paid till before the month in which the annual general body meeting is fixed. The qualifications of office bearers, as Rule 17 indicates, is ordinary membership coupled with a stipulated duration of 'regular and active practice in the High Court, Allahabad.' The period for regular and active practice varies from one end of the spectrum of twenty years in the case of the President to three years in the case of the membership of the Governing Council. But the common stream underlying the qualification for office bearers is regular and active practice in the High Court at Allahabad. Now, it is in this background that it is necessary to closely examine the provisions of the Rules.
Under Rule 5 (d), an ordinary member is defined with reference to three conditions. Firstly, to be an ordinary member, a person has to be an advocate on rolls of the High Court. Secondly, such an advocate must be regularly practicing in the High Court. Thirdly, such an advocate has to be admitted by the Governing Council under Rule 7 as an ordinary member. Rule 7(a) which speaks of admission of members, stipulates that any person who is enrolled as an advocate with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and desires to become an ordinary or, as the case may be, non-resident or life member, has to apply, in writing, to the Honorary Secretary of the Association for admission. The application is required to be submitted in Schedule I. Clause 4 of Schedule I requires a declaration of the applicant to the following effect:
"That the applicant is actively and regularly practicing in the Court the Association of which he or she is to become the member."
Clause 6 of Schedule I similarly has the following requirements:
"That the applicant's name finds place at serial no....... on the roll of Advocates regularly practicing in the Court prepared by the Secretary of the Bar Association duly approved by the Executive Committee."
Under Rule 7(d) , the Honorary Secretary of the Bar Association has to prepare the roll of Advocates 'regularly practicing in the High Court' duly approved by the Governing Council, 'who alone will be entitled to be the ordinary/life member of that Association.' The Honorary Secretary has to finalize the application and place it before the Governing Council for admission. The expression 'advocate in active practice' or 'advocate in regular practice' is defined to include (i) an advocate on roll prepared by the State Bar Council; (ii) who files pleadings and Vakalatnama; (iii) who does not do any other professional work other than that of an Advocate; and (iv) so registered with the Registrar General of the High Court.
These Rules embody a scheme which contains an underlying purpose and object, which is that in order to be an ordinary member of the High Court Bar Association a person must be regularly practicing in the High Court. The requirement of regular practice in the High Court is mandated in Rule 7(d), under which the Honorary Secretary of the Bar Association prepares the roll of Advocates as well as in Rule 5(d) in the definition of the expression 'ordinary member'. Who is in regular practice is defined in Rule 4(h), no doubt in an inclusive sense, but the important requirement which needs to be emphasized is that, to be designated as an advocate in active or regular practice, an advocate has to be on the roll prepared by the State Bar Council; he or she must file pleadings and Vakalatnama; must not do any other professional work other than that of an advocate and significantly must also be registered with the Registrar General of the High Court.
The reference to the Registrar General of the High Court is obviously in relation to the provisions of the rules framed by this Court in exercise of powers conferred by Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Section 34(1) stipulates that the High Court may make rules laying down the conditions subject to which an advocate shall be permitted to practise in the High Court and the courts subordinate thereto. In exercise of the rule-making power, Chapter XXIV dealing with legal practitioners has been incorporated in the Rules of this Court. Rule 3-A provides as follows:
"3-A. (i) Unless the Court grants leave, an Advocate who is not on the Roll of Advocates in the High Court at Allahabad or Lucknow shall not be allowed to appear, act or plead in the High Court at Allahabad or Lucknow as the case might be unless he files appointment along with an Advocate who is on such roll for Allahabad Cases at Allahabad and for Lucknow Cases at Lucknow.
(ii)The High Court shall prepare a Roll of Advocates in Parts 'A' and 'B' of those who ordinarily practice in the High Court, Part 'A' for Allahabad and Part 'B' for Lucknow.
(iii)The roll of advocates shall bear in regard to each advocate entered his full name, father's name, passport size coloured photograph, enrollment number, date of enrollment, complete postal address both of residence and office which shall be in the municipal limits of the city of Allahabad or Lucknow as the case might be.
(iv)The rolls shall be prepared and revised periodically in the manner and under the authority as may be prescribed by the Chief Justice.
(v)This Rule 3-A shall come into force after notification by the Chief Justice that both the Rolls for Allahabad and Lucknow in Parts 'A' and 'B' are complete."
Under Rule 3-A, it has been stipulated that unless the Court grants leave, an advocate who is not on the roll of Advocates in the High Court at Allahabad or Lucknow, shall not be allowed to appear, act or plead at Allahabad or Lucknow, as the case may be, except where the advocate has filed his or her appointment along with 'an advocate who is on such roll'. The High Court has prepared a Roll of Advocates of which Part 'A' is for Allahabad and Part 'B' for Lucknow. The rolls are required to be prepared and revised periodically under the authority of the Chief Justice. In interpreting the provisions of the Rules, a harmonious and purposive interpretation must be placed, consistent with the provisions of Section 34(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and the rules which have been framed thereunder.
The Allahabad High Court is a Chartered High Court with a distinctive history and traditions. The High Court Bar Association discharges a pivotal role in the administration of justice. In that sense, the High Court Bar Association is not akin to just any other body of professionals. The High Court Bar Association, as contemporary experience shows, has a vital role to play in the stability of the institution of the High Court. In matters concerning the well-being of advocates and, equally significantly, in matters of the welfare of litigants for whom the institution exists to render service, the High Court Bar Association raises issues before the Chief Justice and the Judges from time to time. These issues are resolved in a spirit of cooperation in order to ensure that festering problems do not assume unmanageable proportions. The membership of the High Court Bar Association and the election of the office bearers is, therefore, something which is in the nature of a privilege which has attached to it, a high degree of responsibility which is owed towards the administration of justice and in particular to the cause of independent, dispassionate and objective administration of justice in aid of the common citizen. A disruption of the work of the High Court affects the common citizen to whom access to justice is denied. The Rules of the High Court Bar Association, have made copious provisions about the manner in which an extraordinary general meeting can be convened. Rule 32 of the Rules stipulates that an extraordinary general meeting can be convened only on the requisition of a hundred ordinary members. Where the requisition is not honoured by the President or the Honorary Secretary, as the case may be, the recquisionists are entitled to convene a meeting presided over by one of the senior members of the Elders' Committee. Rule 32 (b) stipulates that no decision will be taken to strike work in the High Court by the Bar Association beyond a strike of one day, unless the decision is taken by the majority of members present and voting by a secret ballot in a general body meeting of the Association. Only life/ordinary members are entitled to participate and vote. Hence, it is clear that by conferring enabling rights only on the life and ordinary members, Rule 32 casts an obligation of a serious nature so as to ensure that the work of the High Court is unimpeded and is not disrupted.
Now, it is in this background, it is necessary to understand the perspective of the Elders' Committee. The Elders' Committee has referred to the provisions of Rule 5(d) which stipulates that an ordinary member will be such an advocate who (i) is on the rolls of the High Court; (ii) practices regularly in the High Court; and (iii) who has been admitted by the Governing Council under Rule 7 as an ordinary member. The Elders' Committee has formed the view that the condition of being on the rolls of the High Court is not and should not be a dominant condition. With the greatest respect to this expression of view, what must be borne in mind is that Rule 5(d) expressly incorporates a requirement that, to be an ordinary member, an Advocate must be on rolls of the High Court regularly practicing in the High Court. Once this be the express stipulation in the Rule, it would not, in our view, be appropriate to dilute the importance of one part of the Rule on the hypothesis that this should not be considered to be a dominant condition. Even if the condition is not treated as a dominant condition, it is, nonetheless, an essential condition, and certainly one of the conditions which are prescribed for ordinary membership under Rule 5(d). Rule 5(d), in fact, contains a stipulation of being an advocate on the rolls of the High Court and of regularly practicing in the High Court. This must be juxtaposed with Rule 7 (d) under which the Honorary Secretary of the Bar Association is to prepare a roll of Advocates regularly practicing in the High Court, duly approved by the Governing Council. Both Rule 5(d) and Rule 7(d) contain a pointed reference to regular practice before the High Court and to the roll of Advocates. In fact Rule 5(d) refers to the rolls of the High Court. Rule 4(h) has defined the expression 'active practice' or 'regular practice' to include an advocate on the roll prepared by the State Bar Council who files pleadings and Vakalatnama and who does not do any other professional work other than that of an advocate and who is so registered with the Registrar General of the High Court. These Rules are in conformity with the provisions of Rule 3-A of Chapter XXIV of the Rules which have been framed by this Court under Section 34 (1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Again, with the greatest respect, it would be appropriate to advert on the following conclusions which have been drawn by the Elders' Committee:
"... The expression 'practicing in the High Court' has been defined by Rule 4(h) quoted above. It says that it includes an advocate entered in the rolls prepared by the Bar Council, who files pleadings and Vakalatnama, who does not do any other profession work."
While construing the provisions of Rule 4(h), the Elders' Committee has stated that the Rule includes an advocate who is entered in the rolls prepared by the Bar Council who files pleadings and Vakalatnama and who does not do any other professional work. What this statement of the Elders' Committee has, however, missed is the additional condition which is that the advocate should be so registered with the Registrar General of the High Court. In our view, once the Rules have specifically incorporated a condition, it would not be appropriate to dilute the importance of that condition by holding it not to be dominant or for that matter mandatory.
The view which we are inclined to take is in accord with the law which has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. B.D. Kaushik1. The judgment of the Supreme Court elucidated the grievance made before the Court, which was that members of the Bar Association who never practiced before the Supreme Court regularly had outnumbered the actual practitioners and sought to be the office bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association. In this background, the Supreme Court, in the following observations, made a clear distinction between a court annexed bar association from other lawyers associations:
"There is no manner of doubt that court annexed Bar Associations constitute a separate class different from other lawyers associations such as Lawyers' Forum, All India Advocates' Association, etc. as they are always recognized by the concerned court. Court annexed Bar Associations function as part of the machinery for administration of justice. As is said often, the Bench and Bar are like two wheels of a chariot and one cannot function without the other. The court annexed Bar Associations start with the name of the court as part of the name of the Bar Association concerned. That is why we have Supreme Court Bar Association, Tis Hazari District Court Bar Association, etc. The very nature of such a Bar Association necessarily means and implies that it is an association representing members regularly practicing in the court and responsible for proper conduct of its members in the court and for ensuring proper assistance to the court. In consideration thereof, the court provides space for office of the association, library and all necessary facilities like chambers at concessional rates for members regularly practicing in the court, parking place, canteen besides several other amenities. In the functions organized by the court annexed Bar Associations the Judges participate and exchange views and ascertain the problems, if any, to solve them and vice-versa. There is thus regular interaction between the members of the Bar Association and the Judges. The regular practitioners are treated as officers of the court and are shown due consideration.
Enrollment of advocates not practicing regularly in the court is inconsistent with the main aim and object of the Association. No court can provide chambers or other facilities for such outside advocates, who are not regular practitioners. Neither the Association nor the court can deal with them effectively if they commit any wrong. There are sufficient indications in the Memorandum of Association and the Rules and Regulations of SCBA, which indicate that the Association mainly tries to promote and protect the privileges, interest and prestige of the Association and to promote union and cooperation among the advocates practicing in the court and other associations of advocates..."
The Supreme Court emphasized that the Supreme Court Bar Association exists for promoting the interest of the Supreme Court as well as that of advocates regularly practicing in the Court and not of the advocates, who are not regularly practicing before the Court. The Supreme Court held that the right to vote is not a fundamental right but a statutory right. A bar association in a court is formed for the purpose of ensuring that "all lawyers practicing normally and regularly in that court work under one umbrella" and would be in a position to interact with the judges or officials of that court for any grievance through their elected body because it is not appropriate for individual advocates to interact with the judges having due regard to the need to secure independence of judiciary. The situation which appeared before the Supreme Court had assumed an alarming proportion as is evident from the following observations:
"The learned counsel pointed out that the factual situation, which has been placed before the Court, would establish that today the membership of the SCBA has risen to an mind- boggling figure of around 10,000, of which only around 2,000 members are regularly practicing in this Court. Informing the Court the learned counsel mentioned that historically, with the advocates regularly practicing in the Supreme Court being inducted as members of the SCBA, the facilities made available by this Court to the members were sufficient for their use, but certain unhealthy practices and vices started creeping in to the system of elections to the various posts/offices of the SCBA by reason of the fact that the office of the President of SCBA carried a vast prestige and status, not merely among lawyers but also among Governments and the political class. It was also stated by the learned counsel that being an office bearer or a member of the Executive Committee of the SCBA also carried great importance and prestige. According to the learned counsel, the main vice that crept into the system, for the last decade or so was that aspiring office bearers started buying the application forms for membership, in bulk, and paying the membership fee for lawyers from the various places like Meerut, Rohtak, Saharanpur, Ghaziabad and even as far away a place as Chandigarh."
It was in this background that the Supreme Court held that the Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association to be appointed would prepare a list of regular members practicing in the Court and another separate list of members not regularly practicing in the Court and a third list of temporary members. A detailed procedure was laid down.
This judgment of the Supreme Court has been followed in a recent judgment of a Division Bench of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Ajay Pratap Singh Vs. Oudh Bar Association2. The same problem which was noticed in the judgment of the Supreme Court has been referred to in the judgment of the Division Bench, in the following observations:
"... In the recent years, some Advocates who although were on the roll of Advocates but have not been regularly practicing in the High Court, have also been inducted as members of the Association by the Governing Council only with a view to get their votes to be elected as office bearer of the Association. Not only this some Advocates have been paying the subscription of others only to gain their favour at the time of election. This practice should be immediately stopped to maintain the decency and dignity of the Association."
Having regard to the provisions of the Rules, the basic object and purpose of the High Court Bar Association can be subserved only if the voters' list is prepared so as to recognize those ordinary members who are advocates on the Rolls of the High Court regularly practicing in the High Court and who have been admitted by the Governing Council under Rule 7 to be ordinary members. The attention of the Court was drawn to the definition of the expression 'non-resident member' under Rule 5 (c) for the purposes of submitting that even an advocate who is not ordinarily practicing in the High Court can be admitted by the Governing Council as a non-resident member. The point, however, is that while a non-resident member may be admitted as a member of the Association, such a member does not have a right to participate in the election.
During the course of the hearing, the attention of the Court has also been drawn to the fact that nearly 1600 members of the Bar Association have been included in the tentative voters' list though they are not borne on the Advocates Roll of the High Court as maintained under Rule 3-A of Chapter XXIV of the High Court Rules. Allowing such persons who are not regularly practicing before this Court and whose names are not borne on the Advocates' Roll maintained under Chapter XXIV will dislocate the very existence of the High Court Bar Association. This would not be in the interest of maintaining the sanctity, independence and functioning of this High Court.
Before concluding, we may note at this stage, that we have bestowed our consideration to whether a petition of this nature should be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution, though in fairness, it must be submitted that none of the Counsel have raised an objection to the maintainability of the petition. In our view, where the issue before the Court relates not merely to the functioning of any professional body of lawyers but a court annexed bar association whose functions have a direct and intrinsic bearing on the efficient and proper functioning of the Court, such a petition is maintainable. The sanctity of the court annexed Bar Association has a direct causal impact on the stable functioning of the High Court. Any disruption of that equilibrium immediately affects the litigants and through them, society itself. We are conscious of the limitations on the power of the High Court to intervene once the election process has commenced. However, we have been constrained to intervene in order to protect an association of the institution which has a direct bearing on the administration of justice from being spirited away by nearly 1600 outsiders who have not been regular practitioners and by persons who are not on the Advocates' roll maintained by this Court. The Court cannot in a situation such as this be a mute spectator. In fact, our directions are intended to facilitate an untainted and proper electoral process. This must be coupled with the fact that the Rules that have been framed by the High Court Bar Association, have to be read in a manner in conformity with the rules which have been framed by this Court in pursuance of the provisions of Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Hence, we are of the view that the following directions are required in the interests of justice. We accordingly, issue the following directions:
(i) For the purpose of the ensuing elections to the High Court Bar Association, the voters' list shall be prepared strictly in compliance with the mandate of Rule 5(d) read with Rule 4(h) of the Rules. In order to be on the voters' list, an advocate must be an advocate on the rolls of the High Court, registered in pursuance of the provisions of Rule 3-A of Chapter XXIV of the High Court Rules, as an advocate regularly practicing in the High Court. The voters' list must of course be prepared taking into consideration the other requirements provided in the Rules such as payment of membership, duration of membership etc.;
(ii)The Returning Officers, who have been appointed by the Elders' Committee, are now requested to implement this judgment so as to ensure that the elections are conducted in a fair and proper manner and to enforce the basic principle that advocates who are regularly practicing before this Court and whose names are borne on the Roll of Advocates maintained by the High Court, are entitled to participate in the election;
(iii) The Elders' Committee, with the assistance of the two Returning Officers who are senior Advocates practicing in this Court, may now proceed to finalize the voters' list. The Court has been informed by both the learned senior Advocates, that it would take a period of 48 hours to prepare the voters' list; and
(iv) The Court has also been informed that the voters' list shall be finalized by 12 noon on 16 May 2014 and objections, if any, shall be invited until 12 noon on 17 May 2014. The objections shall be decided by 5 p.m. on 17 May 2014. The election process on 19 May 2014 is not disturbed.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 14.5.2014 AHA (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.) (Dilip Gupta, J.) Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
Disposed of.
For orders, see order of date passed on separate sheets.
Order Date :- 14.5.2014 AHA (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.) (Dilip Gupta, J.)