The Rajasthan High Court has questioned the Bar Council of India’s authority to extend the term of State Bar Council members beyond the five-year limit set by the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court demanded clarification on Rule 32, which allows term extensions due to delayed elections, and set a hearing for November 14.
Rajasthan: The Rajasthan High Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to respond to a plea questioning the legality of a rule that allows the BCI to extend the tenure of elected members of State Bar Councils beyond the term set by the Advocates Act, 1961. The plea is part of the case Shyam Bihar v. Bar Council of India and anr.
Central to the dispute is Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015 (2015 Rules), amended in June 2023. This amended rule enables the BCI to extend the terms of elected State Bar Council members beyond the maximum term stipulated in Section 8 of the Advocates Act. This provision has drawn criticism as it appears to conflict with the parent statute.
Read Also: [Defamation Suit] DMK Moves HC Against AIADMK Chief EPS, Seeks Rs 1 Cr In Damages
In its order, a Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Ashutosh Kumar questioned how a rule could grant authority contradicting its enabling Act. The Court stated,
“Respondent No.1 (BCI) shall respond… as to how in exercise of rule-making power, a rule could be framed in violation of the provisions contained in the parent statute seeking to extend the term of the office of the members beyond maximum period prescribed under the enabling Act.”
The Court will also address the question of interim relief in the next hearing on November 14. The petitioner, represented by Advocate Sunil Samdaria, has urged the court to prevent individuals with expired terms from continuing as members of the Rajasthan State Bar Council.
Read Also: “A New Opportunity for Final Year Law Students”: BCI Allows Registration for AIBE XIX
According to the Advocates Act, Section 8, State Bar Council members have a five-year term, which may only be extended by six months if bar elections are delayed. The petitioner contends that the amended Rule 32 improperly grants the BCI further power to extend tenures, citing delays in the verification of eligible lawyers. This, the petition argues, is inconsistent with the Advocates Act, which mandates a special committee under Section 8A if elections are delayed beyond the allowed period.
The petitioner has also called for quashing the BCI’s December 19, 2023 letter, which allowed the tenure extension for Rajasthan’s State Bar Council members beyond their lawful term, and for conducting elections without further delay. The Rajasthan HC’s response from the BCI will clarify whether this rule stands in line with the Advocates Act, 1961 and will influence future terms for State Bar Council members.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES