BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI Vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a State Bar Council acting under section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (briefly "the Act") make a rule to provide for the removal of its Chairman by passing a resolution of no confidence against him in a meeting of the Bar Council summoned for that purpose ? The question has arisen for decision as follows :-

(2.) After the Delhi Bar Council was elected in January, 1969, the members of the Council elected Shri Radhe Mohan Lal as the Chairman of the Delhi Bar Council. Later differences arose between him and some of the members of the Bar Council. A meeting of the Bar Council was called on September 22, 1972 in which a resolution of no confidence was passed against the Chairman by a majority. But the Chairman disputed the legality of the resolution and sought the directions of the Bar Council of India who heard the Chairman and the Delhi Bar Council on October 21, 1972. The majority of the Bar Council of India expressed the view that (a) there was no provision either in the Act or under the Rules framed thereunder for removal of the Chairman by a no confidence motion passed against him in a metting of the liar Council, and (b) no rule for such removal of the Chairman can be made under the Act by the State Bar Council under section 15.

(3.) The present writ petition was originally filed both against the Bar Council of India and Shri Radhe Mohan Lal but in the meanwhile the Delhi Bar Council elected in 1969 expired. By a fresh election a new Bar Council has come into being and a different person was elected as the Chairman, Shri Radhe Mohan Lal having gone out of office when the previous Delhi Bar Council ceased to exist on the expiry of its tern. The petitioner, therefore, does not now press for the decision of the question whether the resolution of no confidence could be passed by it against Shri Radhe Mohan Lal validly inasmuch as such a question has become academic on the retirement of Shri Radhe Mohan Lal. The petitioner has, however, made a draft amend ment of Rule 33 to ensure that a Chairman of the Delhi Bar Council may be removed by the passing of such a vote of no confidence against him in a meeting of the Bar Council summoned for that purpose. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Bar Council of India that no such. rule can be made under the Act at all. The only rglief now sought by the petitioner is for a declaration against the Bar council of India that such a rule can be made under the Act so that once such a rule is made by the Delhi Bar Council, the Bar Council of India may give their assent to it.