# 1-1 S.C.R. 965 PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL OF M.P. & ORS

- **Citation:** [2011] 11 S.C.R. 965
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-08-09
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6482 of 2011
- **Bench:** Dr. B.S. Chauhan, Swatanter Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1-1-s-c-r-965-pratap-chandra-mehta-v-state-bar-council-of-m-p-ors-27372
- **Pages:** 63

## Headnote

A
8
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Rules - "· 121
and 122-A -· Challenge to vires of r. 122-A, on the ground
that s. 15 of the Advocates Act, does not contemplate the C
framing of such Rule by State Bar Councils providing for
removal of Chairman/Vice-Chairman by 'no confidence
motion' - Held: Rule 122-A of the M.P. Rules contemplates
the removal of a ChairmanNice-Chairman by a motion of no
confidence, passed by a specific majority of the members and D
subject to satisfaction of the conditions stated therein - It
cannot be termed as vesting arbitrary powers in the elected
body - Power delegated to the elected body is within the
framework of the principal Act-s. 15, read with the other
provisions, of the Advocates Act - Power to frame rules has
E
to be given a wider scope, rather than a restrictive approach
so as to render the legislative object achievable - s. 15 which
delegates the Bar Councils the power to frame rules to 'carry
out the purposes of this Chapter' are of generic nature - Thus,
the provisions of"· 121 and 122-A of the Rules are not ultra
F
vires of the provisions of the Advocates Act, including s. 15
- These rules also do not suffer from the vice of excessive
delegation - Amended Rules of the M.P. Rules received the
approval of the Bar Council of India, parlicularly Rule 122-A
and would not be invalidated for want of issuance of any
notification - On facts, the Chairman of the State Bar Council G
had lost the confidence of majority of the elected members
and thus, Resolution to hold special meeting to consider
requisition of 'no confidence motion' cannot be faulted with -
Advocates Act, 1961 - s.15.
965
H
966
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 11 S.C.R.
A
Object and purposes of - Explained.
Administrative law - Delegated legislation - Guidelines
for - Held: It is not necessary to spell out guidelines for
delegated legislation, when discretion is vested in such
8
delegatee bodies - In such cases, the language of the rule
framed as well as the purpose sought to be achieved, would
be relevant factors to be considered by the Court.
Doctrines/Principles - Principles of natural justice -
Applicability of, to removal of ChairmanNice-Chairman of
C
State Bar Council by 'no-confidence motion' - Held: Concept
of just cause and right of hearing are not applicable to the
elected officers where a person is so elected by majority in
accordance with statutory rules - it also has no application to
moving of a 'no-confidence motion in so far as these are
D
controlled by specific provisions and are not arbitrary or
unreasonable.
Words and Phrases:
'Election' - Meaning of - Held: Expression 'election'
E
includes the whole procedure of election and is not confined
to final result - Rejection or acceptance of nomination paper
is included in the said expression.
The election to the State Bar Council were held and
F
'N' was elected as Member and then Chairman of the
State Bar Council by its members. After the expiry of 2%
years, fresh elections were held and 'N' was again
elected as member, and then the Chairman of the State
Bar Council by its members. After issuance of notice in
G accordance with the State Bar Council Madhya Pradesh
Rules, the General Body Meeting of the State Bar Council
was held on 27th March, 2011. Requisitions were made
relating to a 'no confidence motion' against the Chairman/
Vice-Chairman, and that there should be re-election of the
Committees. The minutes were recorded. It was also
H
PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL 967
OF M.P. & ORS.
stated that the ChairmanNice-Chairman had offered their A
resignation subject to withdrawal of 'no ·confidence
motion'. It was resolved that the agenda of the special
meeting would be circulated on the same day itself, by
post, to all the members of the State Bar Council, whether
present at the meeting or not and the next meeting would
B
be held on 16th April, 2011. These notices were issued.
The meeting was held on 16th April, 2011. During the
course of the meeting on 16

## Text

_Characters 0–39,864 of 124,794. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39864 for what follows._

[2011] 1-1 S.C.R. 965
PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA
v.
STATE BAR COUNCIL OF M.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6482 of 2011)
AUGUST 9, 2011
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.]
A
8
State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Rules - "· 121
and 122-A -· Challenge to vires of r. 122-A, on the ground
that s. 15 of the Advocates Act, does not contemplate the C
framing of such Rule by State Bar Councils providing for
removal of Chairman/Vice-Chairman by 'no confidence
motion' - Held: Rule 122-A of the M.P. Rules contemplates
the removal of a ChairmanNice-Chairman by a motion of no
confidence, passed by a specific majority of the members and D
subject to satisfaction of the conditions stated therein - It
cannot be termed as vesting arbitrary powers in the elected
body - Power delegated to the elected body is within the
framework of the principal Act-s. 15, read with the other
provisions, of the Advocates Act - Power to frame rules has
E
to be given a wider scope, rather than a restrictive approach
so as to render the legislative object achievable - s. 15 which
delegates the Bar Councils the power to frame rules to 'carry
out the purposes of this Chapter' are of generic nature - Thus,
the provisions of"· 121 and 122-A of the Rules are not ultra
F
vires of the provisions of the Advocates Act, including s. 15
- These rules also do not suffer from the vice of excessive
delegation - Amended Rules of the M.P. Rules received the
approval of the Bar Council of India, parlicularly Rule 122-A
and would not be invalidated for want of issuance of any
notification - On facts, the Chairman of the State Bar Council G
had lost the confidence of majority of the elected members
and thus, Resolution to hold special meeting to consider
requisition of 'no confidence motion' cannot be faulted with -
Advocates Act, 1961 - s.15.
965
H
966
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 11 S.C.R.
A
Object and purposes of - Explained.
Administrative law - Delegated legislation - Guidelines
for - Held: It is not necessary to spell out guidelines for
delegated legislation, when discretion is vested in such
8
delegatee bodies - In such cases, the language of the rule
framed as well as the purpose sought to be achieved, would
be relevant factors to be considered by the Court.
Doctrines/Principles - Principles of natural justice -
Applicability of, to removal of ChairmanNice-Chairman of
C
State Bar Council by 'no-confidence motion' - Held: Concept
of just cause and right of hearing are not applicable to the
elected officers where a person is so elected by majority in
accordance with statutory rules - it also has no application to
moving of a 'no-confidence motion in so far as these are
D
controlled by specific provisions and are not arbitrary or
unreasonable.
Words and Phrases:
'Election' - Meaning of - Held: Expression 'election'
E
includes the whole procedure of election and is not confined
to final result - Rejection or acceptance of nomination paper
is included in the said expression.
The election to the State Bar Council were held and
F
'N' was elected as Member and then Chairman of the
State Bar Council by its members. After the expiry of 2%
years, fresh elections were held and 'N' was again
elected as member, and then the Chairman of the State
Bar Council by its members. After issuance of notice in
G accordance with the State Bar Council Madhya Pradesh
Rules, the General Body Meeting of the State Bar Council
was held on 27th March, 2011. Requisitions were made
relating to a 'no confidence motion' against the Chairman/
Vice-Chairman, and that there should be re-election of the
Committees. The minutes were recorded. It was also
H
PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL 967
OF M.P. & ORS.
stated that the ChairmanNice-Chairman had offered their A
resignation subject to withdrawal of 'no ·confidence
motion'. It was resolved that the agenda of the special
meeting would be circulated on the same day itself, by
post, to all the members of the State Bar Council, whether
present at the meeting or not and the next meeting would
B
be held on 16th April, 2011. These notices were issued.
The meeting was held on 16th April, 2011. During the
course of the meeting on 16th April 2011, some of the
members left the meeting. The Advocate General of
Madhya Pradesh presided over the continuation of the c
meeting and the no-confidence motion against both the
Chairman and the Vice Chairman was passed by majority
of all the members present and the voting under Rule
122-A of the Rules.
Meanwhile, the appellant filed a writ petition
D
challenging the vires of Rules 121 and 122-A relating to
the term of, and procedure for passing a 'no confidence
motion' against the ChairmanNice-Chairman. The court
directed that the meeting of the State Bar Council could
be held on 16th April, 2011, but the Resolution, if passed,
E
would not be given effect to, till further orders and passed
order for listing the matter for hearing.
Two sets of minutes of the meeting dated 16th April,
2011 were recorded and the same were different. One set
F
of minutes is only signed by the Secretary of the State
Bar Council while the other is signed by the Secretary as
well as by other members who passed the Resolution. In
the Minutes of the meeting dated 16th April, 2011, it was
specifically recorded that the Resolution is not to be
G
. given effect to in view of the orders passed by the High
Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition. However, the copy of
the proceeding was to be communicated to the Registrar
General of the High Court of M.P. This Resolution was
signed by the members present. Thereafter, another writ
H
968
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 11 S.C.R.
A petition was filed claiming same relief. The High Court
dismissed both the writ petitions. Therefore, the
appellants filed the instant appeals.
The questions which arose for consideration In these
8 appeals are whether the provisions of Rules 121 and 122·
A of .the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Rules are
ultra vires Section 15 of the Advocates Act, 1961; was the
delegation of legislative power under Section 15 of the
Act excessive; whether despite the absence of the
C enabling provisions in the principal statute, namely, the
Advocates Act, empowering subordinate State Bar
Councils to enact provisions for removal of the office
bearers of the State Bar Councils by 'no confidence
motions', such power could be read into the general
clause of Section 15(1) of the Act; and whether Rules 121
D and 122-A of the M.P. Rules are invalid for want of prior
approval from the Bar Council of India?
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
E
HELD: 1. The provisions of Rules 121 and 122-A (in
particular) of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh
Rules are not ultra vires of the provisions, including the
provisions of Section 15 of the Advocates Act. These
rules also do not suffer from the vice of excessive
delegation. In view of the language of Section 15(3) and
F the factual matrix, it is clear that the amended rules of the
M.P. Rules had received the approval of the Bar Council
of India, particularly Rule 122-A. The Rules would not be
invalidated for want of issuance of any notification, as it
is not the requirement in terms of Section 15(3) of the Act
G and in any case would be a curable irregularity at best.
[Para 61] [1026-F-H; 1027-A-B]
H
2. 'Election' is an expression of wide connotation
which embraces the whole procedure of election and is
PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL 969
OF M.P. & ORS.
not confined to final result thereof. Rejection or A
acceptance of nomination paper is included in this term.
[Para 38] [1008-H; 1009-A]
N.P. Ponnuswami v. returning Officer, Namakkal
Constituency AIR (39) 952 SC 64: 1952 SCR 218 - referred
8
to.
3.1. The body which elects the Chairman or ViceChairman of a State Bar Council would and ought to have
the right to oust him/her from that post, in the event the
majority members of the body do not support the said
C
person at that time. The provisions of Rule 122-A of the
M.P. Rules make it clear, beyond doubt, that a 'no
confidence motion' can be brought against the elected
Chairman provided the conditions. stated in the said
Rules are satisfied. Section 15 of the Advocates Act D
empowers the State Bar Councils to frame Rules to carry
out the purposes of Chapter II of the Act. Section 3
requires the constitution of the State Bar Councils.
Section 3(3) contemplates that there shall be a Chairman
and a Vice-Chairman of each State Bar Council elected
E
by the State Bar Council in such manner as may be
prescribed. Section 6 of the Act, details the functions to
F
be performed by the State Bar Councils. Inter alia, the
functions to be performed by the State Bar Councils
include, under Sections 6(1 )(d), to safeguard the rights,
privileges and interests of the advocates on its roll. Under
Section 6(1)(g), the function of the Bar Council is to
provide for the election of its members and under
Sections 6(1 )(h) and 6(1 )(i), the State Bar Council has to
perform all other functions conferred on it by or under G
this Act and to do all other things necessary for
discharging the aforesaid functions. Sections 6(1)(h) and
6(1)(i) have to be read and interpreted conjointly. There
is no reason why the expression 'manner of election of
its members' in Section 6(1 )(g) should be given a
H
970
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 11 S.C.R.
A restricted meaning, particularly in light of Sections 6(1 )(h)
and 6(1 )(i). The responsibility of the State Bar Councils
to perform functions as per the legislative mandate
contained in Section 6 of the Act is of a very wide
connotation and scope. No purpose would be achieved
B by giving it a restricted meaning or by a strict
interpretation. The State Bar Council has to be given wide
jurisdiction to frame rules so as to perform its functions
diligently and perfectly and to do all things necessary for
discharging its functions under the Act. The term of office
c of the members of the State Bar Council is also
prescribed under Chapter II, which shall be five years from
the date of publication of the result of the election. On
failure to provide for election, the Bar Council of India has
to constitute a special committee to do so instead.
0 Section 15(2) then provides that without prejudice to the
generality of the foregoing powers, rules may be framed
to provide for the preparation of electoral rolls and the
manner in which the result shall be published. In terms
of Section 15(2)(c), the manner of the election of the
Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council and
E appointment of authorities which would decide any
electoral disputes is provided. The expression 'manner
of election of the Chairman' is an expression which needs
to be construed in its wide connotation. The rules so
framed by the State Bar Council shall become effective
F only when approved by the Bar Council of India in terms
of Section 15(3) of the Advocates Act. [Para 39] [1009-EH; 1010-A-H; 1011-A-C]
3.2. The power of the State Bar Council to frame rules
G under Section 15 of the Advocates Act as a delegate of
the Bar Council of India has to be construed along with
the other provisions of the Advocates Act, keeping in
mind the object sought to be achieved by this Act.
Greater emphasis is to be attached to the statutory
H provisions and to the other purposes stated by the
PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL 971
OF M.P. & ORS.
legislature under the provisions of Chapter II of the
A
Advocates Act. This is an Act which has been enacted
with the object of preparing a· common roll of advocates,
integrating the profession into one single class of legal
practitioners, providing uniformity in classification and
creating autonomous Bar Councils in each State and one
B
for the whole of India. The functioning of the State Bar
Council is to be carried out by an elected body of
members and by the office-bearers who have, in turn,
been elected by these elected members of the said
Council. The legislative intent derived with the objects of C
the Act should be achieved and there should be complete
and free democratic functioning in the State and All India
Bar Councils. The power to frame rules has to be given
a wider scope, rather than a restrictive approach so as
to render the legislative object achievable. The functions
0
to be performed by the Bar Councils and the manner in
which these functions are to be performed suggest that
democratic standards both in the election process and
in performance of all its functions and standards of
professional conduct which need to be adhered to. In
other words, the interpretation furthering the object and
purposes of the Act has to be preferred in comparison
to an interpretation which would frustrate the same and
endanger the democratic principles guiding the
governance and conduct of the State Bar Councils. The
provisions of the Advocates Act are a source of power
for the State Bar Council to frame rules and it will not be
in consonance with the principles of law to give that
power a strict interpretation, unless restricted in scope
E
F
by specific language. This is particularly so when the
provisions delegating such power are of generic nature,
G
such as Section 15(1) of the Act, which requires the Bar
Councils to frame rules to 'carry out the purposes of this
Chapter' and Section 15(2), which further uses generic
terms and expressly states that the Bar Council is
empowered to frame rules 'in particular and without
H
972
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 11 S.C.R.
i. prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers'. If one
reads the provisions of clauses (a), (c), (g), (h) and (i) of
Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act, then, it is clear
that framing of rules thereunder would guide and control
the conduct or business of the State Bar Councils and
8 ensure maintenance of the standards of democratic
governance in the said Councils. Since the office bearers
like the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman are elected by
a representative body i.e. by the advocates who are the
elected members of the Council, on the basis of the
C confidence bestowed by the advocates/electorate in the
elected members, there seems to be no reason why that
very elected body cannot move a 'no confidence motion'
against such office bearers, particularly, when the rules
so permit. [Para 40] [1011-H; 1012-A-F]
D
3.3. The Bar Council of India, also framed rules and
permitted moving of 'no confidence motion' against its
Chairman/Vice-Chairman subject to compliance of the
conditions stated therein. Similarly, Rule 122-A of the M.P.
Rules contemplates the removal of a Chairman/ViceE Chairman by a motion of no confidence, passed by a
specific majority of the members and subject to
satisfaction of the conditions stated therein. This
provision, thus, can neither be termed as vesting arbitrary
powers in the elected body, nor can it be said to be
F suffering from the vice of excessive delegation. The
power delegated to the elected body is within the
framework of the principal Act, i.e., Section 15, read with
the other provisions, of the Advocates Act. In terms of
Rule 120 of the M.P. Rules, a person can be elected as
G ChairmanNice-Chairman only by majority and in case
there is a tie, the election shall be decided by drawing of
lots. Under Rule 118 of the M.P. Rules a ChairmanNiceChairman has to be elected from amongst its members
for two years. In other words, the term of office of the
.. H
PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL 973
OF M.P. & ORS.
ChairmanNice-Chairman is controlled by the fact that he
A
has to be elected to that particular office. The removal
contemplated under Rule 122-A is not founded on a
disciplinary action but is merely a 'no confidence motion'.
It is only the loss of confidence simpliciter i.e. the majority
of the members considering, in their wisdom, that the
B
elected ChairmanNice-Chairman should not be permitted
to continue to hold that office, which is the very basis for
such removal. One must remember that Rules 118 to 122B all come within Chapter XVIII of the M.P. Rules and, as
such, have to be examined collectively. But for this c
Chapter, it cannot be even anticipated as to who and how
the office of the ChairmanNice-Chairman of the State Bar
Council shall be appointed. [Para 41] [1012-H; 1013-A-E]
4.1. The language of the statute has to be examined
before giving a provision an extensive meaning. The
D
Court would be justified in giving the provision a
purposive construction to perpetuate the object of the
Act, while ensuring that such rules framed are within the
field circumscribed by the parent Act. It is also clear that
it may not always be absolutely necessary to spell out
E
guidelines for delegated legislation, when discretion is
vested in such delegatee bodies. ~'1 such cases, the
language of the rule framed as well as the purpose
sought to be achieved, would be the relevant factors to
be considered by the Court. [Para 44] [1015-C-E]
F
4.2. In the instant case, the minimum guidelines of
secrecy and fairness in election have been provided in
Part IX of the Rules, which have been framed in exercise
of the supervisory powers under Sections 49(1)(a), 49(1)(i)
G
and 49(1 )U) of the Advocates Act. Further, clause (5) of
this Part even extends to the State Bar Councils the
power to independently resolve all election disputes
through tribunals constituted for this purpose. Therefore,
the powers delegated have an in-built element of H
974
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 11 S.C.R.
A guidance that the Chairman/Vice-Chairman will be
appointed and regulated by the majority members of the
State Bar Council. Their conduct, and the conduct of the
State Bar Council as a whole, is to be maintained in
consonance with democratic principles and keeping the
B high professional standards of advocates in mind. Thus,
it is not a power which falls beyond the purview and
scope of Section 15 of the Advocates Act read in
conjunction with other provisions, particularly Chapter II
and also keeping in view the object of the Act. [Para 44)
c [1015-E-H; 1016-A]
4.3. The purpose of the Advocates Act is the
democratic and harmonious functioning of the State Bar
Councils, to achieve the object and purposes of the Act.
It cannot be seen as to how the provisions of Rule 122-A
D fall foul of the ambit and scope of Section 15 of the
Advocates Act and, for that matter, any other provisions
of that Act. On the contrary, they are in line with the
scheme of the parent Act. [Para 45] [1016-B-C]
E
O.N. Mohindroo v. Bar Council of Delhi AIR 1968 SC
888; General Officer Commanding-in-Chief v. Subhash
Chandra Yad?JV (1988) 2 SCC 351: 1988 (3) SCR 62; Kunj
Behari Lal Butail v. State of H.P. (2000) 3 SCC 40: 2000 (1)
SCR 1054; Global Energy Ltd. v. Central Electricity
F Regulatory Commission (2009) 15 SCC 570 - relied on.
5.1. The appellant submitted that the recall of the
ChairmanNice-Chairman, by a smaller and distinct body
of members of the State Bar Council, does not fall within
the purview of the authority of the delegatee Council,
G under Section 15(2)(c) of the Advocates Act, i.e. to
legislate on 'the manner of election'; and that the
provisions of Rule 122-A are unsustainable. There is no
merit in the contention as well as it has no substance. The
election to the post of ChairmanNice-Chairman of the
H State Bar Council is not by the larger body, i.e., the
PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL 975
OF M.P. & ORS.
advocates enrolled on the rolls of the State Bar Council, A
but is by a distinct body, i.e. elected members of the State
Bar Council. Once they elect the Chairman/ViceChairman of the State Bar Council as per the scheme of
Rules 118 to 123, then all actions taken by such body
would have to be accepted by all concerned as correct,
B
if they are within the domain of the rules governing such
body. [Para 46] [1016-D-G]
Mohan Lal Tripathi v. District Magistrate (1992) 4 SCC
80: 1992 (3) SCR 338; Ram Beti v. District Panchyat Raj C
Adhikari (1998) 1 SCC 680: 1997 (6 ) Suppl. SCR 582 -
referred to.
5.2. Though the language of the Rule 15 clearly
shows that no matter once decided shall be reconsidered
for a period of three months but clearly makes an D
exception that wherever 2/3rd majority of the members
present of the State Bar Council permits, this bar will not
operate. In other words, there is no absolute bar and the
Rule makes out an exception when the matters could be
reconsidered. But that is not the situation in the instant E
case. The first pre-requisite under this rule is that matter
should be 'once decided', and then. alone, the bar of reconsideration would operate; that too depending on the
facts and circumstances of a given case. 'Once decided'
obviously means the matter should be concluded or F
finally decided in contradistinction of being 'kept pending'
or 'deferred'. [Para 50] [1019-F-H]
5.3. There is some dispute with regard to the
recording of the minutes of this meeting. The minutes
which were recorded by the respective parties are G
reproduced. There is no inclination to rely upon the
minutes produced by the appellants, inasmuch as they
are not signed by all the members present and voting.
Even if, for the sake of arguments, the minutes produced
by the appellants are taken to be correct, then it must H
'976
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 11 S.C.R.
A
follow that both the meetings took place on 16th April,
2011. However, it is obvious from the record that in the
15th meeting of the General Body held on 27th March,
2011, no final decision was taken and it was decided to
circulate the minutes and other papers of the meeting to
B all members. [Para 51] [1020-F-H; 1021-A]
5.4. The submission that by virtue of the bar under
Rule 15 of the M.P. Rules, the Chairman and ViceChairman were elected to their respective posts in
February 2011 and, as such, the election itself was a
C 'decision' which was incapable of being reconsidered
and revised in the meetings of March and April, 2011; and
that the limitation contained in Rule 15 of the M.P. Rules
shall vitiate the decision of passing a 'no confidence
motion', cannot be accepted. It is misconceived in law and
D on the facts of the instant case. Election is not a
'decision' as contemplated under Rule 15 of the M.P.
Rules. It is not a matter on which the State Bar Council
decides, as firstly, the said matter falls within the
discretion of individual advocates on the rolls of the State
E
Bar Council to elect the representative members of the
said Councils, and secondly it falls within the discretion
of such elected representatives to elect a person as
Chairman/Vice-Chairman. It is not a 'decision' which
relates to the matters as contemplated under the M.P.
F
Rules. Passing of a 'no confidence motion' in law,
therefore, cannot be termed as reconsideration of the
decision taken. Once the Council is constituted in terms
of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, then it has
to take decisions in the role of a Council in relation to
G various matters, including rejecting or passing a 'no
confidence motion'. A statutory bar may exist in this
respect, in some cases, but in its absence, the Court
cannot infer or imply a time bar on challenging the results
of election as a feature of common law or general
H
PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL 977
OF M.P. & ORS.
democratic principles. Thus, the bar contemplated under A
Rule 15 of the M.P. Rules does not operate, on merits,
when applied to the facts of the instant case. [Paras 52,
53 and 54] [1021-B-H; 1022-A]
Ram Beti v. District Panchyat Raj Adhikari (1998) 1 SCC B
680: 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 582 - referred to.
5.5. It was submitted that the group supporting the
ChairmanNice-Chairman of the State Bar Council, in the
meeting dated 16th April, 2011, had raised the issue that
'no confidence motion' and reconstitution of the C
committee could not be considered in view of the bar
contained in Rule 15 of the M.P. Rules, in the form of 'a
point of order' against the requisition asked for by the
other group. The submission of the appellants that the
matters were discussed and concluded, either through D
the February 2011 elections or in the 15th Meeting of the
Council dated 27th March, 2011 is rejected as, according
to the minutes, the meeting had only been deferred for
issuance of appropriate agenda and requisition notice to
all the members present or not present. Treating it as a E
valid point of order, the Chairman accepted the same and
then he along with some members, walked out of the
meeting. [Para 55] [1022-B-E]
5.6. The meeting then was presided over by the
Advocate General, whereafter the 'no confidence motion' F
was passed. The approach adopted by the Chairman/
Vice-Chairman cannot be accepted as, on the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case, it ex facie was
untenable and without any basis. It was the duty of the
Chairman/Vice-Chairman to face the 'no confidence G
motion', as they were elected office bearers and if they
had lost the confidence of majority group which elected
them to this post and a 'no confidence motion' had been
moved against them in terms of Rule 122-A, they were
expected to face the consequences thereof. This, alone, H
978
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 11 S.C.R.
A
would have served the ends of democratic governance
and proper functioning of the State Bar Council. [Para 56)
[1022-F-H]
5.7. 'No confidence motion' is in stricto senso not
8
removal from office, but a removal resulting from loss of
confidence. It is relatable to no confidence and is not
removal relatable to the conduct or improper behaviour
of the elected person. Even the concept of 'term' under
the Rules, is referable to and is controlled by a superimposed limitation of no confidence. This tenure cannot
C be compared to a statutory tenure as is commonly
understood in the service jurisprudence. The distinction
between removal by way of 'no confidence motion' and
removal as a result of disciplinary action or censure is
quite well accepted in law. They are incapable of being
D inter-changed in their application and must essentially
operate in separate fields. The Court has always
prioritized harmonious functioning of the State Bar
Council. [Para 58) [1023-D-G)
E
5.8. The concept of just cause and right of hearing,
the features of common law, are not applicable to the
elected offices where a person is so elected by majority
in accordance with statutory rules. It would also have
hardly any application to moving of a 'no confidence
F
motion' in so far as these are controlled by specific
provisions and are not arbitrary or unreasonable. There
is nothing in Rule 122-A of the M.P. Rules that requires
adherence to these two concepts when a motion of no
confidence is moved again$t a sitting ChairmanNiceG Chairman. It does not imply that the action can be
arbitrary or capricious and absolutely contrary to the
spirit of the Rule. In the instant case, majority of the
members had passed the 'no confidence motion' in the
16th Meeting of the State Bar Council on 16th April, 2011.
It cannot be said that solely with the aid of General
'-I
PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL 979
OF M.P. & ORS.
Clauses Act, the power to elect would deem to include
A
power to remove by a motion of no confidence,
particularly, with reference to the facts and circumstances
of the instant case. The power to requisition a 'no
confidence motion' and pass the same, in terms of Rule
122-A of the M.P. Rules, is clear from the bare reading of B
the Rule, as relatable to loss of faith and confidence by
the elected body in the elected office bearer. Rule 122-A
of the M.P. Rules is not ultra vires the provisions of the
Advocates Act, including Section 15. When the law so
permits, there is no right for that office bearer to stay in c
office after the passing of the 'no confidence motion' and,
in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is
clearly established that the appellants had lost the
confidence of the majority of the elected members and
thus, the Resolution dated 16th April, 2011 cannot be
0
faulted with. [Para 60) [1025-D-H; 1026-A-D]
Bar Council of Delhi v. Bar Council of India AIR 1975 Del
200; Afjal Imam v. State of Bihar and Ors. JT 2011 (5) SC
19; Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot
(1974) 2 SCC 706: 1975 (2) SCR 71; B.P. Singhal v. Union
E
of India and Anr. JT 2010 (5) SC 640: 2010 (6) SCR 589 -
referred to.
Case Law Reference:
AIR 1968 SC 888
Relied on.
Para 13
F
1992 (3) SCR 338
Referred to.
Para 37, 46
1952 SCR 218
Referred to.
Para 38
1988 (3) SCR 62
Relied on.
Para 42
G
2000 (1) SCR 1054
Relied on.
I
I Para 43
2009 (15) sec 570
Relied on.
Para 43
1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 582 Referred to.
Para 47, 53
H
A
B
980
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 11 S.C.R.
AIR 1975 Del 200
Referred to.
Para 57, 60
JT 2011 (5) 19
Referred to.
Para 58
1975 (2) SCR 71
Referred to.
Para 59
2010 (6 ) SCR 589
Referred to.
Para 60
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6482 of 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 20.5.2011 of the High
c Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 6372 of 2011.
D
E
WITH
C.A. No. 6483 of 2011
K.V. Vishwanathan, Fakhruddin, T.S. Doabia, Nikhil
Majithia (for Pragati Neekhra), Raj Kishor Chaudhary, Raja
Sharma, T. Mahipal, V.K. Verma, Sanjeev Sahdeva, Preet Pal
Singh, Priyan and Arjun Garg for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SWATANTER KUMAR J. 1.Leave granted.
2. From the very simple facts of these cases, the following
substantial questions of law and public importance arise for
F consideration of this Court:
(1)
Whether the provisions of Rules 121and122-A of
the State BarCouncil of Madhya Pradesh Rules
(for short, the 'M.P. Rules') are ultra vires Section
15 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short, 'the
G
Advocates Act'), inter a/ia for the reason that there
is no nexus between the rule making power of the
State Bar Councils and the powers provided under
Section 15(1) or 15(2)(c) of the Advocates Act?
Was the delegation of legislative power under
H
PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL 981
OF M.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
Section 15 of the Advocates Act excessive,
A
inasmuch as it does not provide any guidelines for
removal of office-bearers of the State Bar
Councils?
(2)
Whether despite the absence of the enabling
B
provisions in the principal statute, namely, the
Advocates Act, empowering subordinate State Bar
Councils to enact provisions for removal of the
office bearers of the State Bar Councils by 'no
confidence motions', such power could be read into
C
the general clause of Section 15(1) of the
Advocates Act? ·
(3)
Whether Rules 121 and 122-A of the M.P. Rules
are invalid for want of prior approval from the Bar
Council of India?
D
3. The necessary facts are that the Parliament enacted the
Advocates Act on 19th May, 1961. Section 15 of the Advocates
Act empowers the State Bar Councils to frame Rules to carry
out the powers conferred upon the State Bar Councils under
E
Sections 15(1 ), 15(2), 28(1) and 28(2) read with Chapter II and
other provisions of the Advocates Act. The State Bar Council
of Madhya Pradesh (for short 'the State Bar Council'), with the
approval of the Bar Council of India, made and published the
M.P. Rules in 1962.These M.P. Rules came to be amended
on 27th April, 1975.
4. Section 15 of the Advocates Act provides that the State
Bar Councils can frame/amend the Rules with prior approval
of the Bar Council of India. Section 15(2)(a) of the Advocates
F
Act read with Part Ill and IX of the Bar Council of India Rules
G
(for short, 'the Rules') contemplates that election to the State
Bar Council shall be held. In furtherance to this legislative
mandate, the election to the State Bar Council were held in the
year 2008 and Mr. Rameshwar Neekhra was elected as
Member and then Chairman of the State Bar Council by its
H
982
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 11 S.C.R.
A members on 31st August, 2008. After the expiry of 2% years,
fresh elections were held on 12th February, 2011 and the said
Mr. Neekhra was again elected as member, and then the
Chairman of the State Bar Council by its members. He is stated
to have secured 21 votes, out of a total 25 votes of the
B Members of the State Bar Council. Mr. Adarsh Muni Trivedi
was elected as Vice-Chairman of the State Bar Council.
5. At the very threshold of the 15th Meeting of the General
Body of the State Bar Council held on 27th March, 2011 at
C Jabalpur, a number of Members submitted two requisitions: one
stated that due to lack of confidence in the Chairman and ViceChairman, a 'no confidence motion' should be issued; and the
second requisition stated that, since the election of the
Committees for the second term was not as per the constitution,
re-election for the Committees may be conducted. They
D requested the State Bar Council to call a special meeting to
consider these requjsitions. It is also recorded in these Minutes
that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman had offered their
resignation, subject to withdrawal of the requisition of 'no
confidence motion'. There was a long discussion, whereafter
E it was resolved that the agenda of the special meeting was to
be circulated on the same day i.e. 27th March, 2011 by
registered post. Copy of the resolution passed and the
requisition motion of 'no confidence', would be circulated to all
Hon'ble Members of the State Bar Council i.e. who were
F
present and those who were not present. These Minutes,
G
H
annexed as 'P-10' (colly) to the petition, read as under:
"Before the start of the meeting Hon'ble Members Sis
Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj, Kuldeep Bhargava, Ghanshyam
Singh, Prem Singh Bhadouria, Shivendra Upadhyay,
Champa Lal Yadav, Dinesh Narayan Pathak, Khalid Noor
Fakhruddin, Mrigendra Singh Baghel, Jai Prakash Mishra.
Prabal Pratap Singh Solanki, Ku. Rashmi Ritu Jain and
B.K. Upadhyay submitted two requisitior: motion of no
confidence. In one of the requisition motion of no
PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL 983
OF M.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
confidence they have stated that they have no confidence
A
in Chairman, Vice- Chairman and Treasurer therefore,
they are moving no confidence motion against them. In the
second requisition motion they have requested that since
the election of the Committees for the second term were
not as per the constitution therefore and even otherwise
B
they want re-election for the Committees. For both the
requisition motion they have requested to call a special
meeting and consider their vote of no confidence against
Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Treasurer. For another
requisition motion they have requested to call a special c
· meeting and consider their proposal. When the meeting
was started both the requisition motion were placed before
the Hon'ble Chairman. Shri Ganga Prasad Tiwari, Hon'ble
Treasurer, Shri Rameshwar Neekhra, Hon'ble Chairman
and Shri AM. Trivedi, Hon'ble Vice-Chairman stated that 0
they offer their resignation subject to withdrawal of
requisition of no confidence motion. There had been long
discussion and members Sis Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj,
Prem Singh Badhouria, Champa Lal Yadav, Pratap Mehta,
Vijay Kumar Choudhary, Ghanshyam Singh, Z.A. Khan,
Kuldeep Bhargava, Khalid Noor Fakhruddin, Rajesh
Pandey Mrigendra Singh Bhagel, Prabal Pratap Singh
Solanki expressed their views. There had been divergent
views in respect of withdrawal of no confidence motion as
well as conditional resignation offered by Hon'ble
Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Treasurer. As such it is
resolved to hold a special meeting on 16th April, 2011 at
Jabalpur from 12.30P.M. onwards in term of Rule 122(A)
E
F
& (B) of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Rules. It is
resolved that agenda of the meeting be circulated today
itself by registered ·post and copy of the resolution passed
G
along with requisition motion of no confidence be
circulated to all Hon'ble Members of the Council who are
present and to them also who are not present today."
6. It appears from the record that in terms of the above
H
984
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 11 S.C.R.
A minutes of the 15th Meeting of the General Body of the State
Bar Council held on 27th March, 2011, the notices of the 16th
Meeting were also issued and circulated. The 16th Meeting of
the General Body of the State Bar Council was decided to be
held on 16th April, 2011 in the Meeting dated 27th March, 2011
B itself.
7. After issuing the notice in accordance with the M:P.
Rules, a meeting of the State Bar Council was held on 16th April,
2011. At this meeting, the 'no confidence motion' was moved
by 13 members of the State Bar Council, in terms of Rule 122C A of the M.P. Rules, against both the Chairman and the ViceChairman. The parties to the present appeals are at some
variance as to the manner, knowledge and the decision with
which the meeting was closed. The respondents herein have
contended that in this meeting, there was actual discussion of
D the 'no confidence motion' moved by some of the members of
the State Bar Council, which was a part of the formal agenda
notice issued by the Secretary of the State Bar Council. In the
Minutes placed on record as Annexure R-16/6, it has been
stated that item No.2 of the agenda, which was to consider the
E requisitioning of 'no confidence motion', was actually
considered and the question arose as to whether Shri
Rameshwar Neekhra, the Chairman could still preside over the
meeting. There was some discussion on that issue, whereafter
the Chairman along with the Secretary is stated to have left the
F meeting on 16th April 2011. The Advocate General had then
presided over the meeting, and the 'no confidence motion' is
stated to have been passed by majority of the members. It will
be useful to refer to the Minutes of the Meeting, held on 16th
April, 2011 on this issue, which are as follows:
G
H
"Twelve of the M.embers have quit away the meeting on
the ground that by virtue of Rule 15 of Chapter V no matter
can be decided and reconsidered for a period of three
months unless the Council by 2/3 of majority of the
Members present shall permit. The affect of this rule is also
PRATAP CHANDRA MEHTA v. STATE BAR COUNCIL 985
OF M.P. & ORS. [SWATANTER KUMAR, J.]
required to be considered by the Hon'ble High Coyrt and
A
all these issues are open before the Hon'ble High Court.
So far as the presiding over of the meeting is
concerned, Rule 14 of Chapter V says that in the absence
of any provision the matter is to be decided by-the majority.
B
That being so the majority of the Members present have
decided to consider the No Confidence Motion hence this
meeting is now being presided over by Advocate General
to whom the majority has decide to preside.
Before the start of the Meeting Hon'ble Member Shri
C
Prabal Pratap Singh Solanki has asked Shri_ Rameshwar
Neekhra, Chairman to kindly decide that the Members are
ready to participate in the No Confidence Motion but at that
time Hon'ble Chairman quit the Meeting Hall along with his
followers and also took away the Secretary saying that we
D
are not going to participate in the No Confidence Motion.
At this Juncture Shri Vinod Kumar Bhardwaj, Hon'ble
Member State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh requested
Shri R.D. Jain, Hon'ble Advocate General and Ex Official
E
Member who remained present from the very beginning of
the meeting and has watched all the proceedings &
discussions which took place by the Hon'ble Members Shri
Bhardwaj requested the Hon'ble Advocate General Shri
R.D. Jain to preside over the meeting which was
seconded by all the members present as following:
1. S/Shri Vin_od Kumar Bhardwaj, (2) Kuldeep Bhargava
F
(3) Jai Prakash Mishra (4) Shivendra Upadhyay (5) Ms.
Rashmi Ritu Jain (6) Dinesh Narayan Pathak (7) Prem
Singh Bhadouria (8) Champa Lal Yadav (9) Ghanshyam
G
Singh (10) Mrigendra Singh Baghel (11) Prabal Pratap
Singh Solanki (12) Khalid Noor Fakhruddin (13) Shri
Ghanshyam Singh, Hon'ble Members.
Shri R.D.