Earlier, The High Court ruled that the BCI had no legal power to allow Advocate Sandeep Chaudhry to contest elections when the Special Committee of the State Bar Council had not yet completed its inquiry into allegations of misconduct, nor had it made any formal recommendations.
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Justice Surya Kant has issued a stern warning against ongoing irregularities in bar elections, particularly concerning the District Bar Association, Karnal.
Earlier, The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an order by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that allowed Advocate Sandeep Chaudhry, the outgoing President of DBA Karnal, to contest the upcoming elections.
Justice Surya Kant didn’t mince words in his observations, stating:
“We will take some serious actions, we will dissolve bar Association….If this continues we will take some serious action, which is in your mind but would not share with you at this time…we don’t fear anyone. We will take take the bull by the horns.”
He also added that:
“We expect that if there are any concerns, the Bar Council should provide a clear response. They must also be prepared for the possibility of a court-appointed tribunal to oversee the conduct of these elections. The same applies to the Bar Associations as well.”
Why the High Court Quashed the BCI Order
The High Court ruled that the BCI had no legal power to allow Advocate Sandeep Chaudhry to contest elections when the Special Committee of the State Bar Council had not yet completed its inquiry into allegations of misconduct, nor had it made any formal recommendations.
A Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri made it clear that:
“However, when the Special Committee concerned, has not yet completed its probe, nor has made any final recommendations to the Disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, nor when the latter has proceeded to impose any punishment upon co-respondent No 4. Resultantly, no jurisdiction became foisted upon the Disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India, either to entertain the appeal or to pass any order thereon. As such, the impugned order is made on an ill-constituted appeal, besides, the same is non-est.”
Case Background
A complaint was filed by Jagmal Singh, alleging that Sandeep Chaudhry had misused bar association funds and allotted chambers to ineligible advocates. The court directed Chaudhry to produce original records, but he failed to comply or provide a valid explanation.
In response, the Special Committee recommended that:
Sandeep Chaudhry should be barred from contesting any post in DBA Karnal for three years, or until the inquiry into fund misappropriation was completed—whichever happened first.
Despite this, the Disciplinary Committee of BCI allowed Chaudhry to contest the elections, prompting the petitioner to move the High Court.
The Bench referred to the Advocates Act, 1961, and explained that under Section 37(2), the BCI’s disciplinary committee can only hear an appeal if the State Bar Council has imposed a punishment. In this case, since there was no final punishment, the BCI had no jurisdiction.
ALSO READ: Bar Elections | ‘33% Reservation For Women Lawyers’: Karnataka High Court Rejects Pleas
The Court observed:
“…sub-Section (2) of Section 37 of the Act of 1961, vests jurisdiction in Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, to hear an appeal against an order, thus, awarding punishment by the Disciplinary Committee of the State Bar Council concerned. Therefore, when the jurisdiction bestowed upon the disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India, to also vary the order imposing the apposite punishment, as may have been purportedly imposed upon co-respondent No.4, was so exercisable then alone, besides when then alone the said imposed punishment could be varied in terms of sub Section (2) of Section 37 of the Act of 1961.”
Further, it was noted that the Special Committee had found prima facie evidence that the co-respondent (Chaudhry) had violated provisions under Section 6(1) of the Act.
“Consequently, only when punishment becoming imposed upon him or upon imposition of punishment to the supra extent, or some more severe punishment, thus becoming imposed upon him, thereupon, there was bestowment of a jurisdiction in the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council concerned, to entertain the appeal and to make an order thereons. However, since excepting the supra interim recommendations, no further punishment has been imposed upon co-respondent No. 4, therebys, there was no jurisdiction in the supra, to entertain the appeal, and, to pass any order thereons.”
The High Court found that the order allowing Chaudhry to contest elections may have been fraudulently obtained. The Bench said:
“Resultantly therebys, the debarment of co-respondent No.4 from contesting elections to the office of President of the District Bar Association concerned, is imperative, prima facie, both for protecting the interests of legal fraternity, and, for also ensuring the passing of the final recommendations/report.”
The Court concluded that:
“The impugned order appeared, prima facie, to have been obtained by the co-respondent No. 4, through his practicing the vices of suppressio veri/ suggestio falsi.”
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the BCI’s order and ruled in favour of the petitioner
Case Title: Sandeep Chaudhry vs. Jagmal Singh Jatain
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
