In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has stayed the operation of an order issued by the Chairman of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, which had recalled an earlier directive and sought the formation of a new Elders Committee to oversee the elections of the Bar Association of Mati, Kanpur Dehat. Justice Kshitij Shailendra, while granting interim relief, observed that the move by the Bar Council appeared to be contrary to previous Division Bench decisions that limited its authority in such matters.
Background of the Case
The matter originated with a writ petition (WRIT – C No. 3240 of 2025) filed by the Elder Committee, Ekikrit Bar Association, Mati Kanpur Dehat, challenging the order dated January 19-20, 2025 (Letter No. 249), wherein the Bar Council Chairman reversed his previous decision of January 12, 2025. The petitioner contended that the reversal was made without affording them an opportunity of hearing and had disrupted the election process that had already been set in motion.
The elections for the Bar Association were scheduled to take place on January 28, 2025, with nomination papers being issued and scrutinized well in advance. The initial order of the Bar Council Chairman had facilitated the appointment of an Observer, Mr. Ajay Yadav, to oversee the elections. However, following an application by the third respondent, the Chairman unilaterally revoked the earlier order and directed the formation of a new Elders Committee.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Jurisdiction of the Bar Council under the Advocates Act, 1961 – The petitioner argued that the Bar Council lacked the authority to interfere in the affairs of a Bar Association, citing previous rulings where similar actions were deemed ultra vires.
2. Due Process and Natural Justice – The petitioner contended that the recall of the January 12 order was done without any notice or opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
3. Elections and Validity of Elders Committee – The core dispute revolved around whether the Bar Council could intervene in the formation of an Elders Committee and subsequent election proceedings.
Arguments Presented
– For the Petitioner: Advocates Dharmendra Singh, Anil Kumar, and Dileep Srivastava contended that the order impugned was without jurisdiction and would lead to unnecessary disruption in the electoral process.
– For the Respondents: Government Counsels Surya Bhan Singh and Akhilesh Kumar represented the state authorities, while Advocates Ashok Kumar Tiwari and Ankit Saran appeared for the Bar Council of U.P. The Bar Council argued that it acted within its powers under Section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961, ensuring that the Elders Committee functioned properly.
Key Observations of the Court
Justice Kshitij Shailendra, in his detailed order, highlighted the inconsistency of the Bar Council’s actions with past Division Bench rulings, stating:
“Chairman of Bar Council has no power or authority to decide the issue of constitution of Elders Committee or issue a direction for holding elections of the office bearers of a Bar Association.”
The Court found prima facie merit in the petitioner’s contention that the recall order was abrupt and disruptive. The judge further noted:
“Once an election schedule was notified and elections were held in accordance with prior orders, recalling the same without notice and appointing a new Elders Committee would cause unnecessary complications and interfere with an elected body’s functions.”
Court’s Decision
The Court granted interim relief, staying the effect and operation of the impugned order dated January 19, 2025, while directing the respondents to file their counter affidavits within four weeks. The matter will be heard next on March 24, 2025.
