Karnataka High Court Quashes Notification Reconstituting State Bar Council Committees, Says It Violates Council's Election Rules

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an October 28 notification issued by Chairman and Vice Chairman of State Bar Council to reconstitute committees of the Council, observing that the same was in violation of the State Bar Council (Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules.

Observing that rules are meant to ensure transparency, the court said that the action of reconstitution of the council's committees would set a precedent undermining the mandatory nature of the rules rendering regulatory framework redundant. 

Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Rajanna R and others who are elected members of the State Bar Council and hold posts in various committees.

The court said “The exercise of statutory authority by respondents No. 2 and 3 in reconstituting the committees, in violation of the Karnataka State Bar Council (Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman) Rules, 1978, is not legally valid”. 

The petitioner contended that the reconstitution of the committees is without following the Rules and under Section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961. It was also pointed out that the Bar Council of India had extended the tenure of the existing elected office bearers vide letter dated November 3, 2023 for the purpose of completing the process of verification of the members of KSBC. The letter clearly indicated that there shall be no change in the office bearers of the State Bar Council during the extended period.

Further, all the Committees can be reconstituted only by holding elections among the internal members through ballot.

The State Bar Council submitted that the Chairman has been empowered to reconstitute the Committees in view of the unanimous resolution dated December 16, 2022 bearing No. 311/2022 passed by all Members of the State Bar Council.

The bench noted that Rule 9 framed under Section 15(2)(h), (i) and (j) of the Act of 1961, clearly reveals that the Executive, Enrolment, Examination, Disciplinary, Privileges, Rules Committee, and other committees enumerated under Rule 9 thereof, must comprise of members elected by the Council from amongst its members. Rule 14, prescribes the term of the Committee other than the Disciplinary Committee, constituted after the expiry of the tenure of the first of each such committee, shall be for a period of two years from the date of the first meeting of the Bar Council.

Then it said “In the case at hand, there is no dispute with regards to the veracity of the reconstitution of the committees, in pursuance of the directions dated 28.10.2024, and which are apparently not in consonance with the above referred Rules of 1978”.

Observing that “When the rules stipulate the procedure for constituting committees, the respondents cannot disregard or bypass the rules and constitute committees in violation thereof”.

The court held “The impugned reconstitution is unilateral and is violative of the democratic nature of the constitution of committees, as envisaged under the relevant Rules of 1978”. 

Rejecting the contention that petitioners were previously appointed as members of the committees by the Chairman of the State Bar Council it said, “It cannot serve as a justification for reconstituting the committees in violation of the prescribed rules. Such an action would set a precedent that undermines the mandatory nature of the rules governing the constitution of committees and would render the regulatory framework redundant”. 

It added “Rules framed under statutory authority are meant to ensure transparency, consistency, and fairness in governance, and any deviation from them without due process weakens their legal sanctity and democratic intent.”

Accordingly it allowed the petition and quashed the reconstitution of committees granting liberty to the respondents to reconstitute the Committee, in accordance with law.

Case Title: Rajanna R & Others AND Karnataka State Bar Council & Others

Appearance: Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam M for Advocate Goutham A R for Petitioner.

Senior Advocate D.R Ravishankar for Advocate Nataraj G for Respondents.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 479

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29591 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Full View