Delhi High Court Denies Interim Protection to Chairman of Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

Delhi High Court had denied interim protection to Mr. Hari Shankar Singh, the Chairman of Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council who had been restrained from performing his duties by the Bar Council of India.

Brief Facts of the Case

Hari Shankar Singh and Darvesh Yadav received 12 votes each in the election of the Chairman of the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council. They had mutually agreed to hold the post for 6 months each, in which Yadav opted for the first half and Singh for the second. Unfortunately, the Agra Court premises saw Yadav’s murder by a fellow lawyer Manish Babu Sharma. Manish shot himself as well. Yadav expired on the spot whereas Manish was battling for his life at a private hospital.

The ‘House’ after several procedures and deliberations, elected Mr. Hari Shankar Singh as the Chairman. Hari Singh had opened a separate joint bank account with an unauthorized clerk and diverted the amount collected as enrolment fee in that account without any authority from the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. 

Therefore, the Bar Council of India restrained him from exercising his authority as the Chairman through an order dated 15.05.2020. He thus filed a petition at the Supreme Court which got disposed of for BCI to decide.

Therefore, the petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging the impugned order of BCI dated 15.05.2020. 

Petitioner’s Contentions

The Petitioner alleged that respondent no. 2 passed the Impugned Order without authorization from the respondent no. 1. The Petitioner argued that the respondent no. 1 did not have the jurisdiction to pass an order to remove or restrain the Chairman of the State Bar Council from acting in the capacity. 

The learned Senior Counsel had submitted that the general power of issuance of directions in Section 48-B of the Advocates Act, 1961 did not extend to restrict the Chairman of the State Bar Council from discharging his duties.

Respondent’s Contentions

The learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that the power to restrain was vested in the respondents under Section 7(1)(d) and 7(1)(g) of the Act and Rule 12(D)(18), Part II of the Bar Council of India Rules. He had submitted that the term of the petitioner as Chairman was complete as on 08.06.2020, and fresh elections were to take place on 05.07.2020. Moreover, Respondent no. 1 ratified the decision of Respondent no. 2 in its meeting held on 17.05.2020. 

The Counsel further submitted that 13 out of 24 members of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh had complained against the petitioner and this was of a serious nature. He referred to the order of the Supreme Court in Hari Shankar Singh vs Bar Council of India & Anr., and submitted that the SC had declined to entertain the petition as the remedy for the petitioner would be to approach the BCI to remove the Impugned Order. 

The counsel specified that the petitioner had been granted time to reply to the allegations made against him and all the submissions and documents had been supplied to the petitioner via email.

Court’s Observation

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Navin Chawla had been set up and the hearing was through video conferencing. Mr. Preetpal Singh, advocate on behalf of the Respondents accepted the notice of the Court. The Court granted his prayer for four weeks to file counter affidavit. 

Court’s Decision

The Court held that as the elections for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh are scheduled on 05.07.2020, no cases for passing an Interim Order for protection are there at this stage. The Court held that the Petitioner had the liberty to respond to the allegations made in the Impugned Order. 

The Court further held that any such representation of the Petitioner should be expeditiously considered by the Bar Council of India. This should be within two weeks from the receipt and a Speaking Order passed. If aggrieved, the Petitioner shall challenge the order according to the law. The Court would take up this case of Hari Shankar Singh vs. Bar Council of India & Anr. on 3rd September 2020.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News,InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -