In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the dual roles of Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, who serves as the Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI) and a Rajya Sabha member. The petition, filed by advocate Amit Kumar Diwakar, sought Mishra’s disqualification, alleging that his position as BCI Chairman constitutes an “office of profit” under Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution. The case, registered as W.P.(C) 14113/2024, was heard by Justice Sanjeev Narula.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Amit Kumar Diwakar, argued that Mishra’s role as BCI Chairman conflicted with his position as a Member of Parliament. He contended that the statutory and financial powers associated with the BCI chairmanship amounted to holding an “office of profit,” thereby disqualifying Mishra from parliamentary membership. Diwakar cited the Pandit Thakur Das Bhargava Committee Report (1955) on “offices of profit,” which emphasized disqualifications based on authority, influence, and administrative control.
The petitioner also pointed out that the position of BCI Chairman is not listed in the Schedule of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, which exempts certain offices from being considered as offices of profit.
Legal Issues Raised
1. Constitutional Disqualification: The primary issue revolved around Article 102(1)(a) of the Constitution, which disqualifies individuals from Parliament if they hold any office of profit under the government unless exempted by law.
2. Role of BCI Chairman: The petitioner claimed that the BCI Chairman’s duties included significant statutory and administrative functions that potentially influenced legal matters and thus qualified as an office of profit.
3. Procedural Compliance: The Court examined whether the appropriate legal procedures, including filing an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, had been followed to challenge Mishra’s election.
Court’s Decision and Observations
Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the petition, ruling that the challenge was procedurally inappropriate. The Court noted that Article 103 of the Constitution provides a well-defined mechanism for determining disqualification, which involves the President’s consultation with the Election Commission. The petitioner’s approach to seek a writ of mandamus directing the Ministry of Law and Justice and the Election Commission was deemed improper.
The Court highlighted that election disputes should be addressed through election petitions as per Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Referring to the Supreme Court’s precedents in Indrajit Barua vs. Election Commission of India and Tej Bahadur vs. Narendra Modi, the Court reiterated that election petitions are the only legally prescribed method for challenging elections.
“Bypassing the statutory and constitutional framework by invoking Article 226 would undermine the intent of the Representation of the People Act. The writ jurisdiction cannot be an alternative to challenging elections in the prescribed manner,” Justice Narula observed.
The Court further noted that Mishra was already serving as BCI Chairman at the time of his election to the Rajya Sabha, with no subsequent changes that could trigger disqualification. As a result, the petition was found to lack substantive merit.
Finding the petition to be an abuse of legal process, the Court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioner, to be deposited with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority within four weeks.
