UP Bar Council Vs BCI- Dispute Settled Amicably, Adverse Remarks Against BCI Expunged: Delhi High Court Disposes Of Plea

Taking note of the submission made by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh that a meeting was held with the Bar Council of India and that an amicable resolution had been reached between the parties, the Delhi High Court last week disposed of a plea filed by the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, alleging that BCI was attempting to take over its functioning.

The Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh, however, directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to appoint the Member Secretary in accordance with its Rules and Regulations and if there are no such Rules framed then steps shall be taken within a reasonable period, in accordance with the law, to frame such rules.

Earlier, the Court had directed,

"The meeting with the BCI shall accordingly take place on 15th March, 2021. On the said date, all the respective groups may be represented and an attempt shall be made to sort out the disputes between the different factions of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh."

Submissions made by the parties 

The Court noted that pursuant to the amicable resolution, the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh had already expunged the adverse remarks against the BCI.

Thereafter, it was submitted on behalf of the BCI that it agrees not to insist the enforcement of its orders dated 19th January, 2021 and 2nd February, 2021, which were the letters impugned in this petition.

Further, it was also submitted that the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh ought to conduct its activities strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961, BCI Rules and applicable Regulations.

Lastly, BCI submitted that the Member Secretary ought to be appointed in terms of the applicable Rules/Regulations.

In view of this stand, the Court directed,

"Since the Executive Committee of the BCUP is already functioning, it is directed that the Member Secretary shall now be appointed by the said Executive Committee in accordance with law."

Consequently, the petition was disposed of in the above terms. The questions of law raised in the petition was, however, left open.