PRAVEEN KUMAR v. THE UNION OF INDIA & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
Outcome
Allowed
The writ application is allowed
Provisions considered
- Advocates Act, 1961 s. 8(A)
Judgment
Committee namely Shri Suraj Narayan Sinha, Sr. Advocate, has since the date of notification has come to occupy the post of Chairman of Bar Council of India. This is a development which has forced the hand of the said advocate how to opt out of the Special Committee. In this regard a communication dated
Operative part
30.06.2008 has been brought to my notice. It is a communication with a request to accept his resignation by the Special Committee. A request has been made that it should be done by circulation instead of holding a meeting on the next appointed date. In view of the communication of the Counsel, it is directed his resignation be accepted by the Special Committee by circulation within a week. The Secretary, Bar Council of India is hereby further directed that he shall take steps for filling up the two posts of Special Committee excepting the Advocate General by making fresh nominations. Nomination shall not include any person who was part and parcel of the outgoing State Bar Council of Bihar. The second exercise should be done by the Bar Council of India preferably within two weeks so that the object and purpose of appointing a Special Committee for holding election to the body at the earliest, in the interest of the legal fraternity is not jeopardize in any manner or delay. The above direction would be conformity with direction/decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anup Singh (Supra). The writ application stands disposed of to the extent indicated above. Let a copy of this order be handed over to Mr. S.K. Ghosh appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Bar Council and Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh counsel representing Bar Council of India for communication. The writ application is allowed. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Advocates Act, 1961 — s. 8(A).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.