PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL OF M.P & Ors.

Judgment

1-1 S.C.R. 965 PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL OF M.P. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6482 of 2011) AUGUST 9, 2011 A 8 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Rules - "· 121 and 122-A -· Challenge to vires of r. 122-A, on the ground that s. 15 of the Advocates Act, does not contemplate the C framing of such Rule by State Bar Councils providing for removal of Chairman/Vice-Chairman by 'no confidence motion' - Held: Rule 122-A of the M.P. Rules contemplates the removal of a ChairmanNice-Chairman by a motion of no confidence, passed by a specific majority of the members and D subject to satisfaction of the conditions stated therein - It cannot be termed as vesting arbitrary powers in the elected body - Power delegated to the elected body is within the framework of the principal Act-s. 15, read with the other provisions, of the Advocates Act - Power to frame rules has E to be given a wider scope, rather than a restrictive approach so as to render the legislative object achievable - s. 15 which delegates the Bar Councils the power to frame rules to 'carry out the purposes of this Chapter' are of generic nature - Thus, the provisions of"· 121 and 122-A of the Rules are not ultra F vires of the provisions of the Advocates Act, including s. 15 - These rules also do not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation - Amended Rules of the M.P. Rules received the approval of the Bar Council of India, parlicularly Rule 122-A and would not be invalidated for want of issuance of any notification - On facts, the Chairman of the State Bar Council G had lost the confidence of majority of the elected members and thus, Resolution to hold special meeting to consider requisition of 'no confidence motion' cannot be faulted with - Advocates Act, 1961 - s.15. 965 H 966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R. A Object and purposes of - Explained. Administrative law - Delegated legislation - Guidelines for - Held: It is not necessary to spell out guidelines for delegated legislation, when discretion is vested in such In such cases, the language of the rule delegatee bodies - framed as well as the purpose sought to be achieved, would be relevant factors to be considered by the Court. 8 Doctrines/Principles - Principles of natural justice - Applicability of, to removal of ChairmanNice-Chairman of C State Bar Council by 'no-confidence motion' - Held: Concept of just cause and right of hearing are not applicable to the elected officers where a person is so elected by majority in accordance with statutory rules - it also has no application to moving of a 'no-confidence motion in so far as these are D controlled by specific provisions and are not arbitrary or unreasonable. Words and Phrases: E 'Election' - Meaning of - Held: Expression 'election' includes the whole procedure of election and is not confined to final result - Rejection or acceptance of nomination paper is included in the said expression. F The election to the State Bar Council were held and 'N' was elected as Member and then Chairman of the State Bar Council by its members. After the expiry of 2% years, fresh elections were held and 'N' was again elected as member, and then the Chairman of the State Bar Council by its members. After issuance of notice in G accordance with the State Bar Council Madhya Pradesh Rules, the General Body Meeting of the State Bar Council was held on 27th March, 2011. Requisitions were made relating to a 'no confidence motion' against the Chairman/ Vice-Chairman, and that there should be re-election of the Committees. The minutes were recorded. It was also H PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL 967 OF M.P. & ORS. stated that the ChairmanNice-Chairman had offered their A resignation subject to withdrawal of 'no ·confidence motion'. It was resolved that the agenda of the special meeting would be circulated on the same day itself, by post, to all the members of the State Bar Council, whether present at the meeting or not and the next meeting would B be held on 16th April, 2011. These notices were issued. The meeting was held on 16th April, 2011. During the course of the meeting on 16th April 2011, some of the members left the meeting. The Advocate General of Madhya Pradesh presided over the continuation of the c meeting and the no-confidence motion against both the Chairman and the Vice Chairman was passed by majority of all the members present and the voting under Rule 122-A of the Rules. Meanwhile, the appellant filed a writ petition D challenging the vires of Rules 121 and 122-A relating to the term of, and procedure for passing a 'no confidence motion' against the ChairmanNice-Chairman. The court directed that the meeting of the State Bar Council could be held on 16th April, 2011, but the Resolution, if passed, E would not be given effect to, till further orders and passed order for listing the matter for hearing. Two sets of minutes of the meeting dated 16th April, 2011 were recorded and the same were different. One set F of minutes is only signed by the Secretary of the State Bar Council while the other is signed by the Secretary as well as by other members who passed the Resolution. In the Minutes of the meeting dated 16th April, 2011, it was specifically recorded that the Resolution is not to be G . given effect to in view of the orders passed by the High Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition. However, the copy of the proceeding was to be communicated to the Registrar General of the High Court of M.P. This Resolution was signed by the members present. Thereafter, another writ H 968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R. A petition was filed claiming same relief. The High Court dismissed both the writ petitions. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeals. 8 The questions which arose for consideration In these appeals are whether the provisions of Rules 121 and 122· A of .the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Rules are ultra vires Section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961; was the delegation of legislative power under Section 15 of the Act excessive; whether despite the absence of the C enabling provisions in the principal statute, namely, the Advocates Act, empowering subordinate State Bar Councils to enact provisions for removal of the office bearers of the State Bar Councils by 'no confidence motions', such power could be read into the general clause of Section 15(1) of the Act; and whether Rules 121 D and 122-A of the M.P. Rules are invalid for want of prior approval from the Bar Council of India? Dismissing the appeals, the Court E HELD: 1. The provisions of Rules 121 and 122-A (in particular) of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Rules are not ultra vires of the provisions, including the provisions of Section 15 of the Advocates Act. These rules also do not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. In view of the language of Section 15(3) and the factual matrix, it is clear that the amended rules of the M.P. Rules had received the approval of the Bar Council of India, particularly Rule 122-A. The Rules would not be invalidated for want of issuance of any notification, as it is not the requirement in terms of Section 15(3) of the Act G and in any case would be a curable irregularity at best. F [Para 61] [1026-F-H; 1027-A-B]

#2. 'Election' is an expression of wide connotation which embraces the whole procedure of election and is H PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL 969 OF M.P. & ORS. not confined to final result thereof. Rejection or A acceptance of nomination paper is included in this term. [Para 38] [1008-H; 1009-A] N.P. Ponnuswami v. returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency AIR (39) 952 SC 64: 1952 SCR 218 - referred 8 to.

3.1. The body which elects the Chairman or Vice Chairman of a State Bar Council would and ought to have the right to oust him/her from that post, in the event the majority members of the body do not support the said C person at that time. The provisions of Rule 122-A of the M.P. Rules make it clear, beyond doubt, that a 'no confidence motion' can be brought against the elected Chairman provided the conditions. stated in the said Rules are satisfied. Section 15 of the Advocates Act D empowers the State Bar Councils to frame Rules to carry out the purposes of Chapter II of the Act. Section 3 requires the constitution of the State Bar Councils. Section 3(3) contemplates that there shall be a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman of each State Bar Council elected E by the State Bar Council in such manner as may be prescribed. Section 6 of the Act, details the functions to be performed by the State Bar Councils. Inter alia, the functions to be performed by the State Bar Councils include, under Sections 6(1 )(d), to safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of the advocates on its roll. Under Section 6(1)(g), the function of the Bar Council is to provide for the election of its members and under Sections 6(1 )(h) and 6(1 )(i), the State Bar Council has to perform all other functions conferred on it by or under G this Act and to do all other things necessary for discharging the aforesaid functions. Sections 6(1)(h) and 6(1)(i) have to be read and interpreted conjointly. There is no reason why the expression 'manner of election of its members' in Section 6(1 )(g) should be given a F H 970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R. A restricted meaning, particularly in light of Sections 6(1 )(h) and 6(1 )(i). The responsibility of the State Bar Councils to perform functions as per the legislative mandate contained in Section 6 of the Act is of a very wide connotation and scope. No purpose would be achieved B by giving it a restricted meaning or by a strict interpretation. The State Bar Council has to be given wide jurisdiction to frame rules so as to perform its functions diligently and perfectly and to do all things necessary for discharging its functions under the Act. The term of office c of the members of the State Bar Council is also prescribed under Chapter II, which shall be five years from the date of publication of the result of the election. On failure to provide for election, the Bar Council of India has to constitute a special committee to do so instead. Section 15(2) then provides that without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, rules may be framed to provide for the preparation of electoral rolls and the manner in which the result shall be published. In terms of Section 15(2)(c), the manner of the election of the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council and E appointment of authorities which would decide any electoral disputes is provided. The expression 'manner of election of the Chairman' is an expression which needs to be construed in its wide connotation. The rules so framed by the State Bar Council shall become effective F only when approved by the Bar Council of India in terms of Section 15(3) of the Advocates Act. [Para 39] [1009-E H; 1010-A-H; 1011-A-C] 0

3.2. The power of the State Bar Council to frame rules G under Section 15 of the Advocates Act as a delegate of the Bar Council of India has to be construed along with the other provisions of the Advocates Act, keeping in mind the object sought to be achieved by this Act. Greater emphasis is to be attached to the statutory H provisions and to the other purposes stated by the PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL 971 OF M.P. & ORS. legislature under the provisions of Chapter II of the A Advocates Act. This is an Act which has been enacted with the object of preparing a· common roll of advocates, integrating the profession into one single class of legal practitioners, providing uniformity in classification and creating autonomous Bar Councils in each State and one B for the whole of India. The functioning of the State Bar Council is to be carried out by an elected body of members and by the office-bearers who have, in turn, been elected by these elected members of the said Council. The legislative intent derived with the objects of C the Act should be achieved and there should be complete and free democratic functioning in the State and All India Bar Councils. The power to frame rules has to be given a wider scope, rather than a restrictive approach so as to render the legislative object achievable. The functions to be performed by the Bar Councils and the manner in which these functions are to be performed suggest that democratic standards both in the election process and in performance of all its functions and standards of professional conduct which need to be adhered to. In other words, the interpretation furthering the object and purposes of the Act has to be preferred in comparison to an interpretation which would frustrate the same and endanger the democratic principles guiding the governance and conduct of the State Bar Councils. The provisions of the Advocates Act are a source of power for the State Bar Council to frame rules and it will not be in consonance with the principles of law to give that power a strict interpretation, unless restricted in scope by specific language. This is particularly so when the provisions delegating such power are of generic nature, G such as Section 15(1) of the Act, which requires the Bar Councils to frame rules to 'carry out the purposes of this Chapter' and Section 15(2), which further uses generic terms and expressly states that the Bar Council is empowered to frame rules 'in particular and without H E F 0 972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R. i. prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers'. If one reads the provisions of clauses (a), (c), (g), (h) and (i) of Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, then, it is clear that framing of rules thereunder would guide and control the conduct or business of the State Bar Councils and 8 ensure maintenance of the standards of democratic governance in the said Councils. Since the office bearers like the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman are elected by a representative body i.e. by the advocates who are the elected members of the Council, on the basis of the C confidence bestowed by the advocates/electorate in the elected members, there seems to be no reason why that very elected body cannot move a 'no confidence motion' against such office bearers, particularly, when the rules so permit. [Para 40] [1011-H; 1012-A-F] D

3.3. The Bar Council of India, also framed rules and permitted moving of 'no confidence motion' against its Chairman/Vice-Chairman subject to compliance of the conditions stated therein. Similarly, Rule 122-A of the M.P. Rules contemplates the removal of a Chairman/Vice- E Chairman by a motion of no confidence, passed by a specific majority of the members and subject to satisfaction of the conditions stated therein. This provision, thus, can neither be termed as vesting arbitrary powers in the elected body, nor can it be said to be F suffering from the vice of excessive delegation. The power delegated to the elected body is within the framework of the principal Act, i.e., Section 15, read with the other provisions, of the Advocates Act. In terms of Rule 120 of the M.P. Rules, a person can be elected as G ChairmanNice-Chairman only by majority and in case there is a tie, the election shall be decided by drawing of lots. Under Rule 118 of the M.P. Rules a ChairmanNice Chairman has to be elected from amongst its members for two years. In other words, the term of office of the .. H PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL 973 OF M.P. & ORS. ChairmanNice-Chairman is controlled by the fact that he A has to be elected to that particular office. The removal contemplated under Rule 122-A is not founded on a disciplinary action but is merely a 'no confidence motion'. It is only the loss of confidence simpliciter i.e. the majority of the members considering, in their wisdom, that the B elected ChairmanNice-Chairman should not be permitted to continue to hold that office, which is the very basis for such removal. One must remember that Rules 118 to 122- B all come within Chapter XVIII of the M.P. Rules and, as such, have to be examined collectively. But for this c Chapter, it cannot be even anticipated as to who and how the office of the ChairmanNice-Chairman of the State Bar Council shall be appointed. [Para 41] [1012-H; 1013-A-E]

4.1. The language of the statute has to be examined before giving a provision an extensive meaning. The D Court would be justified in giving the provision a purposive construction to perpetuate the object of the Act, while ensuring that such rules framed are within the field circumscribed by the parent Act. It is also clear that it may not always be absolutely necessary to spell out E guidelines for delegated legislation, when discretion is vested in such delegatee bodies. ~'1 such cases, the language of the rule framed as well as the purpose sought to be achieved, would be the relevant factors to be considered by the Court. [Para 44] [1015-C-E] F

4.2. In the instant case, the minimum guidelines of secrecy and fairness in election have been provided in Part IX of the Rules, which have been framed in exercise of the supervisory powers under Sections 49(1)(a), 49(1)(i) G and 49(1 )U) of the Advocates Act. Further, clause (5) of this Part even extends to the State Bar Councils the power to independently resolve all election disputes through tribunals constituted for this purpose. Therefore, the powers delegated have an in-built element of H 974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R. A guidance that the Chairman/Vice-Chairman will be appointed and regulated by the majority members of the State Bar Council. Their conduct, and the conduct of the State Bar Council as a whole, is to be maintained in consonance with democratic principles and keeping the B high professional standards of advocates in mind. Thus, it is not a power which falls beyond the purview and scope of Section 15 of the Advocates Act read in conjunction with other provisions, particularly Chapter II and also keeping in view the object of the Act. [Para 44) c [1015-E-H; 1016-A] D E

4.3. The purpose of the Advocates Act is the democratic and harmonious functioning of the State Bar Councils, to achieve the object and purposes of the Act. It cannot be seen as to how the provisions of Rule 122-A fall foul of the ambit and scope of Section 15 of the Advocates Act and, for that matter, any other provisions of that Act. On the contrary, they are in line with the scheme of the parent Act. [Para 45] [1016-B-C]