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

Must Read

WhatsApp Emails Delhi HC Judge Asking Her Not To Hear the Plea Challenging New Privacy Policy

The Delhi High Court raised strong objection to an E-mail sent by WhatsApp asking a judge not to hear the plea which challenges its new privacy policy. Justice Pratibha Singh said that the e-mail that was withdrawn later was totally unwarranted as she was anyway going to recuse from hearing the plea which was filed by Rohilla Chaitanya who contends that the new privacy policy of WhatsApp provides 360-degree access to a customer’s virtual activity and is against the fundamental right of privacy.

TRP Scam Case: Bombay HC Extends Protection To Arnab Goswami and Other Employees Till the Next Hearing

On Friday, the Bombay High court extended the protection that was given, to Republic TV’s Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami and other employees of ARG Outlier Media Private Limited till January 29th in the alleged case of Television Rating Point manipulation. A status report was submitted by the police to the division bench of Justices S.S.Shinde and Manish Pitale by the Police on the ongoing case.

Plea Seeks FIR Against Maharashtra Minister Dhananjay Munde in Bombay HC for False Info

A plea has been filed in Bombay High Court seeking an FIR against Maharashtra minister Dhananjay Munde who is undergoing times of trouble due to his extra-marital affair. Recently, an FIR had been lodged against Munde by a woman, accusing him of raping her sister. Munde clarified that he was actually in a relationship with that woman and had two children. He accused the two women of blackmailing him.

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India &...

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

WhatsApp Emails Delhi HC Judge Asking Her Not To Hear the Plea Challenging New Privacy Policy

The Delhi High Court raised strong objection to an E-mail sent by WhatsApp asking a judge not to hear the plea which challenges its new privacy policy. Justice Pratibha Singh said that the e-mail that was withdrawn later was totally unwarranted as she was anyway going to recuse from hearing the plea which was filed by Rohilla Chaitanya who contends that the new privacy policy of WhatsApp provides 360-degree access to a customer’s virtual activity and is against the fundamental right of privacy.

TRP Scam Case: Bombay HC Extends Protection To Arnab Goswami and Other Employees Till the Next Hearing

On Friday, the Bombay High court extended the protection that was given, to Republic TV’s Editor in Chief Arnab Goswami and other employees of ARG Outlier Media Private Limited till January 29th in the alleged case of Television Rating Point manipulation. A status report was submitted by the police to the division bench of Justices S.S.Shinde and Manish Pitale by the Police on the ongoing case.

Plea Seeks FIR Against Maharashtra Minister Dhananjay Munde in Bombay HC for False Info

A plea has been filed in Bombay High Court seeking an FIR against Maharashtra minister Dhananjay Munde who is undergoing times of trouble due to his extra-marital affair. Recently, an FIR had been lodged against Munde by a woman, accusing him of raping her sister. Munde clarified that he was actually in a relationship with that woman and had two children. He accused the two women of blackmailing him.

Writ Petition for Compensation Accepted by Calcutta High Court 

Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum of compensation have not yet...

No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court

Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated 28.10.2020 disqualified the petitioner and...

Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water

The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors held that right to...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest

The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition before...

Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test

The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of the “two-finger” virginity test and...

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s request to the U.K. to...

Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount

Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to revoke the Petitioner’s offer as...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -