Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Removal Of Advocate From Bar Association Citing Lapses In Procedure Set By State Bar Council
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has overturned the District Bar Association, Datia's decision to cancel the membership of advocate Ram Sahai Chiroliya, citing non-adherence to the procedural requirements as outlined in the model byelaws prescribed by the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh.
The Bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani were hearing a writ petition filed by Chiroliya, challenging the Bar Association's decision.
Chiroliya had served as President of the District Bar Association's Executive Body from 2017 to 2019. The dispute arose when the Executive Council alleged that the petitioner failed to deposit a certain amount of the association's funds, leading to the issuance of a show-cause notice on July 3, 2020. Despite petitioner's reply, the Executive Council severed his membership on August 22, 2020, prompting him to seek judicial relief.
The Petitioner contended that the District Bar Association, as a recognized entity under Section 2(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Adhivakta Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam, 1982, must comply with the model byelaws issued by the State Bar Council. Section 16 of the Adhiniyam of 1982 requires bar associations to follow specific procedures for membership removal, which include approval from the State Bar Council and ratification by the General Body of the association.
The petitioner's removal was neither approved by the State Bar Council nor ratified by the General Body in a duly convened meeting with 50% member attendance, as required by Clause 5 of the model byelaws.
The counsel for the District Bar Association defended the cancellation, citing the alleged failure to deposit the amount collected during his tenure, The respondents argued that the severity of the action was necessary to maintain accountability. They also contended that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a General Body meeting could not be convened, and approval by circulation was deemed valid.
Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Rajendra Kumar Vani examined the case thoroughly, emphasizing that Sections 16 and 17 of the Madhya Pradesh Adhivakta Kalyan Nidhi Adhiniyam, 1982, govern the recognition, registration, and duties of bar associations. Compliance with these provisions is mandatory for any action against a member, the bench held.
The court noted that the District Bar Association failed to follow the prescribed procedures for membership cancellation. The absence of State Bar Council approval and a properly convened General Body meeting invalidated the Executive Council's decision, it held.
Court thus restored Petitioner's membership and granted the association liberty to proceed according to law if further allegations against the petitioner arise, ensuring compliance with the model byelaws.
Case title: Ram Sahai Chiroliya vs. District Bar Association, Datia and Another
Citation: Writ Petition No. 14547 of 2020