Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the elections to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa, where certain rules regarding voter eligibility and ballot validity were challenged. The Bar Council had prepared an Electoral Roll, deleting names of advocates who had not paid their subscriptions as per Rule 40 of the State Bar Council Rules. Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No. 903 of 2004 seeking to allow all advocates to vote regardless of subscription payment. The elections were held, and the results were declared, but the validity of the rules governing voting was contested. The Bombay High Court delivered conflicting judgments regarding the validity of Rules 6(h) and 32(g), leading to the matter being referred to a third judge who agreed with the view that these rules were ultra vires the powers of the State Bar Council. The Supreme Court, upon review, upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the Bar Council of India alone had the authority to set conditions for voting, and the State Bar Council's rules were invalid as they imposed additional conditions on voting rights. The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, affirming that the invalidation of votes based on the number of preferences indicated was not permissible. The court emphasized that the approval of the Bar Council of India could not validate rules that were beyond the State Bar Council's powers.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Ultra Vires - Validity of Election Rules - Advocates Act, 1961, Sections 15, 49 - The court held that Rules 6(h) and 32(g) of the State Bar Council Rules exceeded the powers of the State Bar Council and were therefore ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961. The Bar Council of India has the exclusive authority to prescribe voting conditions, and the State Bar Council cannot impose additional requirements that infringe on the voting rights of advocates (Paras 10-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rules 6(h) and 32(g) of the State Bar Council Rules are ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, affirming the High Court's ruling that Rules 6(h) and 32(g) were ultra vires the Advocates Act, 1961. The court held that the Bar Council of India has the exclusive authority to set conditions for voting, and the State Bar Council's rules were invalid.
Law Points
- Ultra vires
- Election rules
- Bar Council powers
- Advocates Act
- Voting rights
