The Rajasthan High Court has issued a directive to the Bar Council of India (BCI) to justify the legality of a controversial rule that permits the extension of tenure for elected members of State Bar Councils, which seems to contravene the stipulations of the Advocates Act, 1961. This challenge comes amid the case Shyam Bihar v. Bar Council of India and anr., which has ignited significant legal debate.
The rule in question, Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, was amended in June 2023 to allow the BCI to extend the terms of State Bar Council members beyond the maximum term defined in Section 8 of the Advocates Act. The High Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Ashutosh Kumar, has expressed concerns about the apparent overreach of the BCI’s rule-making powers.
“Respondent No.1 (BCI) shall respond… as to how in exercise of rule-making power, a rule could be framed in violation of the provisions contained in the parent statute seeking to extend the term of the office of the members beyond maximum period prescribed under the enabling Act,” stated the court order.
The petition, brought forth by Advocate Sunil Samdaria, argues that the amended Rule 32 not only conflicts with the legislative framework of the Advocates Act but also improperly empowers the BCI to extend tenures due to delays in the verification process of eligible lawyers. This extension capability, according to the petitioner, should not bypass the protocol outlined in Section 8A of the Act, which requires the formation of a special committee if elections are postponed beyond the allowable six-month extension after a five-year term.
The court has also indicated that it will consider the request for interim relief in the next hearing scheduled for November 14, focusing on preventing members whose terms have expired from continuing in office pending the resolution of this legal challenge.
