The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed a Madras High Court order of February 16 containing a series of directions and remarks about the need to conduct transparent and clean elections to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
“What kind of an order has the High Court passed? This is a moralistic order,” Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, leading a three-judge Bench, observed at the outset.
A Division Bench of the High Court led by Justice Kirubakaran passed the order on writ petitions alleging that the elections due on March 28 may see widespread corruption.
Eligibility conditions
The High Court had upheld the demand made in the petitions to quash the Bar Council of India’s resolution to defer its decision on amendment proposed to the State Bar Council Rules. The amendments had introduced new eligibility conditions for members to contest the State Bar Council polls.
These included a bar on lawyers who had been elected twice before, those holding office in any political party and those punished for contempt of court and those against whom criminal cases were pending. The amendments proposed by a Special Committee of the State Bar Council had even barred lawyers with less than 10 years of legal practice from contesting the elections.
“These are members and lawyers. What is all this? These are not the general elections,” Chief Justice Misra observed. The apex court, however, retained the proposed amendment that candidates should declare if they have any criminal antecedents.
While issuing notice to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, the Bar Council of India, among others, The apex court stayed all proceedings before the Madras High Court.
The High Court had observed in its order that “mostly, persons, who make money through real estate business and not practising in courts, having communal backing, distribute free gifts, spend in lakhs and even more than a crore, without any practice in law, much less any good practice, are elected.”
The special leave petition (SLP) in the apex court was filed by advocate K. Chandramohan, represented by advocate K.V. Mohan, who was elected twice to State Bar Council. He said the High Court order upholding the amendments made him an “affected person”.
The High Court committed an error in directing the reconsideration of the new amendment of the Special Committee, when once the Bar Council of India has decided not to grant approval to the newly amended Election Rules passed by the Special Committee... As per understanding of the petitioner already more than 200 hundred nominations have been filed for contesting the election both under new and old rules for the 25 seats,” the SLP said.
Mr. Chandramohan said “various remarks in the High Court judgment relating to alleged money power and malpractices, etc, are completely unfounded and without basis.”
