Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

In a recent judgment, the Allahabad High Court addressed the scope of authority held by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh in compelling individual Bar Associations to grant or deny membership to advocates. Court said, "There is no statutory duty cast on the Bar Council to issue any direction to an independent Bar Association to revive/renew the registration or membership to any individual".

"The powers being referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners are clearly not powers vested in the Bar Council or its functionaries to compel any Bar Association to grant or refuse to grant membership by any Bar Association. Those powers are with respect to protecting the interests, rights and privileges of advocates generally, that is as a body of individuals," it added while disposing of a plea filed by two advocates for addition of their names to the Kanpur Bar Association's electoral list.

Advocates Onkar Bajpai, and Sudheer Bajpai filed a plea before the high court seeking direction to the Kanpur Bar Association to comply with the order passed by the Vice-Chairman, the U.P. Bar Council to add their names to the Association's electoral list.

The petitioners alleged that they were being victimised at the hands of the outgoing Secretary of the Kanpur Bar Association as an FIR had also been lodged against them. 

They claimed that due revival/renewal of their membership was being repeatedly declined solely on account of a civil dispute pending between the present petitioners and respondent no.3.

The petitioners' counsel argued that Section 6(1)(d) of the Advocates Act, 1961 (the Act) clearly authorises the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to pass appropriate orders to safeguard the rights, privileges, and interests of advocates.

He referred to Rule 6 of the Rules framed under Section 15(2)(g) of the Act which provides for powers of the Chairman of the State Bar Council to contend that the Chairman of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh had the power to issue such direction to the Bar Association of Kanpur Nagar.

However, respondent no.3 argued that there is no power, authority or jurisdiction etc. in the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to issue any direction to any Bar Association to grant or refuse to grant membership to any person.

The counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that "the Bar Council exists as a parent body that grants licence to practice to any advocate. All its powers are to regulate the conduct of advocates enrolled by it. The Bar Associations are independent registered societies though Bar Council enjoys certain leverage with the Bar Associations to the extent it has provided model bye-laws etc".

On the other hand, the counsel for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh submitted that looking into the grievance of the petitioners and finding it to be genuine, the Bar Council had already issued direction and it could do nothing more.

Taking note of the submissions made, at the outset, the bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Rajendra Kumar said that the writ court is not the executing court of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.

Regarding the petitioners' submission pertaining to the power vested in the Bar Council or its functionaries, court said, "Those powers are not vested in the Bar Council to adjudicate or determine individual rights of advocates. That power is confined to conduct disciplinary proceedings etc. In the context of individual rights claimed by the petitioners to be revived as a member of Kanpur Bar Association, we find no jurisdiction existing with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to issue any binding direction to the Bar Association to grant such membership".

Therefore, in that context, court held that the direction issued by the Vice Chairman of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh was only an information/opinion.

"It may remain to be considered by the Kanpur Bar Association, on its own merit," ordered the court. 

Accordingly, leaving that course open to the petitioners to approach the Kanpur Bar Association through its duly constituted functionaries and/or to seek other remedy as may be available to them, court declined the interference claimed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while dismissing the petition at hand.

Case Title: Onkar Bajpai And Another v. The U.P. Bar Council And 2 Others