LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in ordering fresh elections for the Awadh Bar Association due to unruly conduct during the previous election.
CASE TYPE: Election Law/ Professional Conduct
Case Name: Amit Sachan & Anr. vs. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow & Ors.
Judgment Date: 24 September 2021
Date of the Judgment: 24 September 2021
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.15349-15350 of 2021
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna.
Can the sanctity of Bar Association elections be compromised by unruly behavior? The Supreme Court addressed this question while upholding the High Court’s decision to order fresh elections for the Awadh Bar Association. This case highlights the importance of maintaining decorum and the integrity of the legal profession. The bench comprised of Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna, who dismissed the special leave petitions.
Case Background
The case arose from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, concerning the elections of the Awadh Bar Association. The petitioners, who were advocates and candidates in the 2021 elections, challenged the High Court’s order for fresh elections. The High Court had directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to implement the principle of “one Bar one vote” and had taken suo moto cognizance of the unruly events that occurred during the Awadh Bar Association elections held on 14.08.2021.
During the election on 14.08.2021, some advocates engaged in misconduct, including tearing ballot papers, pushing female lawyers, and causing injuries. This disruption led to the cancellation of the polling by the Returning Officer and prompted the High Court to intervene.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 14.08.2021 | Elections of the Awadh Bar Association held. |
| 14.08.2021 | Unruly behavior by some advocates, including tearing ballot papers and misbehaving with female lawyers. |
| 14.08.2021 | Polling cancelled by the Returning Officer due to the disruption. |
| 24.08.2021 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, passes order directing fresh elections and other measures. |
| 27.08.2021 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, passes another order with directions. |
| 24.09.2021 | Supreme Court dismisses the special leave petitions filed against the High Court orders. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, took suo moto cognizance of the events of 14.08.2021, where the elections of the Awadh Bar Association were marred by violence and misconduct. The High Court issued several directions, including ordering fresh elections to be held on 25.09.2021. The High Court also directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to implement the “one Bar one vote” principle and instructed various Bar Associations to publish lists of members who had voted in the previous three years. The petitioners, who were candidates in the cancelled elections, approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in R. Muthukrishnan Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, (2019) 16 SCC 407, emphasizing the significance of the legal profession and the role of lawyers in the administration of justice. The Court highlighted the following observations from the case:
- “The legal profession cannot be equated with any other traditional professions. It is not commercial in nature and is a noble one considering the nature of duties to be performed and its impact on the society.”
- “The independence of the Bar and autonomy of the Bar Council has been ensured statutorily in order to preserve the very democracy itself and to ensure that judiciary remains strong.”
- “It is basically the lawyers who bring the cause to the Court are supposed to protect the rights of individuals of equality and freedom as constitutionally envisaged and to ensure the country is governed by the rule of law.”
- “Role of the Bar in the legal system is significant. The Bar is supposed to be the spokesperson for the judiciary as Judges do not speak.”
The Court also reiterated its observations from Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of U.P., (2016) 8 SCC 335, stressing that there is no room for taking out processions or raising slogans in court premises. It emphasized that the sanctity of the court is of utmost importance.
Arguments
Petitioners’ Arguments:
- The petitioners argued that the High Court’s order to conduct fresh elections was not justified.
- They contended that the Returning Officer had only cancelled the polling and not the entire election process.
- They highlighted that out of 4,500 members, 3,614 had already cast their votes, and only 1,219 members remained.
- The petitioners stated that it would be difficult to bring back all the members to vote again, especially due to the pandemic.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The respondents, including the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, supported the High Court’s decision.
- They emphasized the unruly behavior of some advocates during the election, which included tearing ballot papers, pushing female lawyers, and causing injuries.
- They argued that the High Court rightly took suo moto cognizance of the incident to maintain the purity of the election process.
- They pointed out that the misconduct had caused security issues in the High Court premises.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Petitioners: High Court’s order for fresh elections not justified. |
|
| Respondents: High Court’s order necessary to maintain purity of elections. |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues, but the core issue was whether the High Court was justified in ordering fresh elections for the Awadh Bar Association due to the unruly conduct during the previous election.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issue:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in ordering fresh elections? | Upheld the High Court’s decision. | The Court found that the unruly behavior during the election warranted the High Court’s intervention to maintain the purity of the election process and the decorum of the court premises. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| R. Muthukrishnan Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, (2019) 16 SCC 407 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to and relied upon | Significance of the legal profession and the role of lawyers in the administration of justice. |
| Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of U.P., (2016) 8 SCC 335 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to and relied upon | Emphasized that there is no room for taking out processions or raising slogans in court premises. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ argument that the High Court’s order for fresh elections was not justified because the Returning Officer had only cancelled the polling and not the entire election process. | Rejected. The Court held that the High Court was correct in ordering fresh elections due to the serious misconduct that occurred during the polling. |
| Petitioners’ argument that it would be difficult to bring back all the members to vote again, especially due to the pandemic. | Rejected. The Court did not find this argument sufficient to overturn the High Court’s decision, given the need to maintain the purity of the election process. |
| Respondents’ argument that the High Court rightly took suo moto cognizance of the incident to maintain the purity of the election process. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the High Court was justified in intervening due to the unruly behavior of some advocates during the election. |
| Respondents’ argument that the misconduct had caused security issues in the High Court premises. | Accepted. The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the security issues and the need to maintain decorum in the court premises. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Supreme Court referred to R. Muthukrishnan Vs. Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras, (2019) 16 SCC 407* to highlight the significance of the legal profession and the role of lawyers in the administration of justice. The Court emphasized the need for an independent Bar and the importance of maintaining the rule of law.
- The Supreme Court also referred to Mahipal Singh Rana v. State of U.P., (2016) 8 SCC 335* to reiterate that there is no room for taking out processions or raising slogans in court premises. The Court stressed the importance of maintaining the sanctity of the court.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with upholding the integrity of the election process and maintaining the decorum of the court premises. The unruly behavior of some advocates during the election was a major factor that weighed heavily on the Court’s mind. The Court emphasized that members of the legal profession, which is considered a noble profession, should not engage in such misconduct. The Court also highlighted the importance of ensuring that the Bar Association is elected by genuine voters who are regularly practicing in the court. The need to maintain the purity of the election process and the sanctity of the court premises were paramount in the Court’s decision.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Importance of maintaining the purity of elections | 35% |
| Need to uphold the decorum of court premises | 30% |
| Condemnation of unruly behavior by advocates | 25% |
| Significance of the legal profession | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the need to maintain the integrity of the legal profession and the sanctity of the court premises. The Court found that the High Court was justified in ordering fresh elections due to the serious misconduct that occurred during the previous election. The Court emphasized that members of the Bar should conduct themselves with dignity and decorum, and any behavior that undermines the integrity of the legal system cannot be tolerated.
The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations, as the facts of the case clearly demonstrated the need for the High Court’s intervention. The Court’s decision was based on the principle that the purity of the election process and the decorum of the court premises must be upheld at all costs.
The Court stated: “Any member of the Bar cannot be permitted to misbehave in the premises of the High Court… The manner in which the lawyers acted and misbehaved on 14.08.2021 in the premises of the High Court, where the election of the Awadh Bar Association was going on, cannot be tolerated and accepted and has to be deprecated.”
The Court further noted: “Being a member of the legal profession, which always is being considered as a noble profession, what message the lawyers, who misbehaved will give to the public at large.”
The Court also observed: “Office bearers of the Bar Association are to be elected by the genuine voters and the advocates genuinely/regularly practicing in the High Court and/or the Court concerned, and outsiders not regularly practicing in that court cannot be permitted to hijack the system by permitting them to take part in the election process of electing members of the Bar Association.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to order fresh elections for the Awadh Bar Association due to unruly behavior during the previous election.
- The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the purity of the election process and the decorum of court premises.
- The legal profession is considered a noble profession, and members of the Bar are expected to conduct themselves with dignity and decorum.
- Misconduct by advocates, such as tearing ballot papers and misbehaving with female lawyers, cannot be tolerated.
- Bar Associations should be elected by genuine voters who are regularly practicing in the court.
Directions
The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, as it was primarily concerned with upholding the High Court’s decision. The directions given by the High Court, such as the implementation of “one Bar one vote” and the publication of voter lists, were implicitly upheld by the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the special leave petitions.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court is justified in ordering fresh elections for a Bar Association if the previous elections were marred by unruly behavior and misconduct that compromised the integrity of the process. This decision reinforces the importance of maintaining the sanctity of the legal profession and the decorum of court premises. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case highlights the importance of upholding the principles of fair and transparent elections for Bar Associations.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the special leave petitions underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of Bar Association elections and the decorum of court premises. The Court’s decision sends a clear message that misconduct by members of the legal profession will not be tolerated and that the purity of the election process must be upheld. The judgment reinforces the idea that the legal profession is a noble one, and its members must conduct themselves with dignity and respect.