AMIT SACHAN & ANR. versus BAR COUNCIL OF UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW & ORS. on 24 September 2021

O R D E R

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned ordersdated 24.08.2021 and 27.08.2021 passed by the Division Bench of theCLucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad passed inP.I.L. Civil No.18055 of 2021 by which the High Court has directed inparagraph 24 as under:- “(I)The U.P. Bar Council shall issue necessary circular ororder implementing the principle of ‘one Bar one Vote’.

D(II)The U.P. Bar Council shall direct all the registered BarAssociations to put on their website/notice board the namesof members who have casted their vote in last three yearsi.e., 2018, 2019 and 2020.

(III)The Central Bar Association, Lucknow Bar Association,EState Public Services Tribunal Bar Association, CentralAdministrative Tribunal Bar Association and Armed ForcesTribunal Bar Association are directed to put on theirwebsite/ notice board the list of members who have castedtheir vote in last three elections i.e., 2018, 2019 and 2020.

F(IV)The Elders’ Committee, Awadh Bar Association shallformulate ‘code of conduct’ for elections keeping in viewthe recommendations and directions issued today.

(V)Canvassing by distribution of visiting cards/cards, pamphletsor poster should be prohibited in the elections of the AwadhGBar Association. Distribution of lunch packets, refreshment,etc. should not be allowed either before or during theelection and all those who are found distributing such thingsshould be debarred from contesting elections. Hosting orarranging dinner parties for canvassing for elections shouldbe prohibited.

H

(VI)Senior Registrar or any other Officer deputed by him inconsultation with the Elders’ Committee shall debar suchMembers of Awadh Bar Association from participatingthe ensuing election who may be found having indulged inmisbehaviour and disrupting the process of election on14.8.2021 while the polling was in process, after dueverification of the complaints received and perusal of videoclipping and such other evidence as may be available.”

The petitioners – advocates reported to be practicing lawyersand contesting the election of the Awadh Bar Association, 2021 havepreferred the present special leave petitions.

2. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that by the impugnedorder, the High Court has declared the election of the Awadh BarAssociation scheduled to be held on 14.08.2021, however, withoutappreciating the difficulties that it will be very difficult to bring back thenearly 4,500 members again for voting in this pandemic situation. It issubmitted that as far as the earlier election is concerned, only the pollingwas got cancelled by the Returning Officer.

2.1 It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that in the election,which was held on 14.08.2021 out of 4,500 members, 3,614 membersdirectly cast their votes and the remaining members, who were to casttheir votes were only 1,219 members. It is submitted therefore that theHigh Court is not at all justified in declaring fresh elections.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioners and the impugned orders passed by the High Court, it appearsthat in the election of Awadh Bar Association held on 14.08.2021 held inthe premises of the High Court of Lucknow, unruly, indecent and rusticbehavior and breach of protocol by some of the lawyers lead to ultimatelycancellation of the election which had caused the security issues in thepremises of the High Court and the Officers and Police were compelledto intervene to maintain the decorum. Therefore, the High Court rightlytook the suo moto cognizance of the incident occurred on 14.08.2021 inthe premises of the High Court.

3.1 As can be seen from the impugned orders that in the electionof Awadh Bar Association scheduled to be held on 14.08.2021, thecandidates/advocates alongwith their supporters entered into the votingarena and indulged in tearing ballot papers and in pushing female lawyers A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aand misbehaving with them. Even one lawyer was seriously injured andhis hand got fractured in the incident. One lawyer suffered heart attack,therefore, the High Court rightly took suo moto cognizance and issuedvarious directions including to hold fresh elections on 25.09.2021. Thedirections as issued by the High Court in paragraph 24 cannot be faultedin the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which seems to beBissued to maintain the purity of the election of the Bar Association.

3.2 Having noted the importance of the Bar and the role to beplayed by the members of the Bar in the administration of justice deliverysystem, this Court in the case of R. Muthukrishnan Vs. RegistrarGeneral, High Court of Judicature at Madras, (2019) 16 SCCC407 has observed in paragraphs 16 to 19 as under:-

“16. The legal profession cannot be equated with any othertraditional professions. It is not commercial in nature and is anoble one considering the nature of duties to be performed and itsimpact on the society. The independence of the Bar and autonomyDof the Bar Council has been ensured statutorily in order to preservethe very democracy itself and to ensure that judiciary remainsstrong. Where the Bar has not performed the duty independentlyand has become a sycophant that ultimately results in thedenigrating of the judicial system and judiciary itself. There cannotEbe existence of a strong judicial system without an independentBar.

17. It cannot be gainsaid that lawyers have contributed in thestruggle for independence of the nation. They have helped in theframing of the Constitution of India and have helped the courts inFevolving jurisprudence by doing hard labour and research work.The nobility of the legal system is to be ensured at all costs so thatthe Constitution remains vibrant and to expand its interpretationso as to meet new challenges.

18. It is basically the lawyers who bring the cause to the Courtare supposed to protect the rights of individuals of equality andfreedom as constitutionally envisaged and to ensure the countryis governed by the rule of law. Considering the significance of theBar in maintaining the rule of law, right to be treated equally andenforcement of various other fundamental rights, and to ensurethat various institutions work within their parameters, its G

H

independence becomes imperative and cannot be compromised.The lawyers are supposed to be fearless and independent in theprotection of rights of litigants. What lawyers are supposed toprotect, is the legal system and procedure of law of deciding thecases.

19. Role of the Bar in the legal system is significant. The Bar issupposed to be the spokesperson for the judiciary as Judges donot speak. People listen to the great lawyers and people areinspired by their thoughts. They are remembered and quoted withreverence. It is the duty of the Bar to protect honest Judges andnot to ruin their reputation and at the same time to ensure thatcorrupt Judges are not spared. However, lawyers cannot go tothe streets or go on strike except when democracy itself is indanger and the entire judicial system is at stake. In order to improvethe system, they have to take recourse to the legally availablemethods by lodging complaint against corrupt Judges to theappropriate administrative authorities and not to level suchallegation in the public. Corruption is intolerable in the judiciary.”

3.3 It is further observed in paragraph 31 that there is no room fortaking out the procession in the court premises or slogan raising in thecourts. This Court has very heavily criticized the misbehave of theadvocates in the premises of the High Court of Madras resulting intorequisitioning of CISF to maintain safety and majesty of the Court andrule of law. In paragraph 31, it is observed as under:-

“31. There is no room for taking out the procession in the courtpremises, slogan raising in the courts, use of loudspeakers, use ofintemperate language with the Judges or to create any kind ofdisturbance in the peaceful, respectful and dignified functioningof the court. Its sanctity is not less than that of a holy place reservedfor noble souls. We are shocked to note that the instances ofabject misbehaviour of the advocates in the premises of the HighCourt of Madras resulting into requisitioning of CISF to maintainsafety and majesty of the Court and rule of law. It has beenobserved by this Court in Mahipal Singh Rana [Mahipal SinghRana v. State of U.P., (2016) 8 SCC 335 : (2016) 4 SCC (Civ) 1: (2016) 3 SCC (Cri) 476 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 390] that the BarCouncil has failed to discharge its duties on the disciplinary side.In our opinion, in case such state of affairs continues and the Bar A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

ACouncil fails to discharge duties the Court shall have to superviseits functioning and to pass appropriate permissible orders.Independence of the Bar and the Bench both are supreme, therehas to be balance inter se.”

4. Any member of the Bar cannot be permitted to misbehave inBthe premises of the High Court. The manner in which the lawyers actedand misbehaved on 14.08.2021 in the premises of the High Court, wherethe election of the Awadh Bar Association was going on, cannot betolerated and accepted and has to be deprecated.

4.1 Being a member of the legal profession, which always is beingCconsidered as a noble profession, what message the lawyers, whomisbehaved will give to the public at large. Office bearers of the BarAssociation are to be elected by the genuine voters and the advocatesgenuinely/regularly practicing in the High Court and/or the Courtconcerned, and outsiders not regularly practicing in that court cannot bepermitted to hijack the system by permitting them to take part in theDelection process of electing members of the Bar Association. As thematter is subjudice before the High Court, we refrain from making furtherobservations on the conduct of the advocates, who misbehaved and thattoo as stated in the impugned order that even the female lawyers werepushed and some of the candidates alongwith their supporters evenEmisbehaved with them.

5. We see no reason at all to interfere with the impugned orders,which as such is in furtherance of maintaining the purity of the electionof the members of the Bar Association. The special leave petitions areaccordingly stand dismissed.

F

Devika Gujral

SLPs dismissed.

G

H