PRATAP MEHTA v. SUNIL GUPTA & Ors.

#3. No election could have been conducted on 02.08.2014 for electing member to the Bar Council of India from the State Bar Council. Further, the election of the member to the Bar Council of India is statutorily regulated by Bar Council of India Rules and Rule 7 require notice by the Secretary of the State Council fixing a date for the election of the member to the Council. Notices dated 16.07.2014 and 19.07.2014 cannot be read as notice as required under Rule 7 for holding election of a member to the Bar Council of India from the State Bar Council, hence, the conduct of election of a member as a representative from State Bar Council to Bar Council of India in the meeting dated 02.08.2014 cannot be said to be in conformity with Rule 7 of Bar Council of India Rules. The High Court was, thus, clearly right in its view that election of ‘PM’ on 02.08.2014 as member of the A B C D E F G H 1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 11 S.C.R. A B C D E F G H Bar Council of India was not a valid election. Both the elections dated 29.06.2014 and 02.08.2014 to elect a member in the Bar Council of India having been held to be invalid, the High Court was right in issuing directions for conducting a fresh election to elect a member in the Bar Council of India, which was necessary and just. [Para 26] [1086-A-E] Waryam Singh and another v. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215; Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and others AIR 1964 SC 477; K. Narasimhiah v. H.C. Singri Gowda and others, AIR 1966 SCC 330; P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology, AIR 1981 SC 789; V.S. Krishnan and others v. Westfort Hi-tech Hospital Ltd. and Others (2008) 3 SCC 363 – held inapplicable Case Law Reference