Co-Opted Members Of Bar Council Cannot Be Considered As A Separate Class From Elected Members: Kerala HC

Justice C. S. Dias made this observation in a petition filed by 2 co-opted members of the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) who challenged the decision of the Council to keep them away from its meeting after the Bar Council of India (BCI) extended the term of the BCK under Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules 2015.

The BCI argued that Rule 32 only mentions the extension of the term of elected members/ office bearers of the State Bar Council. Rule 32 empowers the BCI to extend the term of elected members of a State Bar Council if there is any delay in preparing the electoral roll for election to the State Bar Council due to a delay in the identification of non-practicing advocates or verification of their certificates. As per this rule, the verification should be completed within 18 months, and the process of elections has to be completed within 6 months therefrom.

The petitioners were elected and co-opted as members of the XII BCK to the two vacancies that arose due to the death and resignation of the members. The 5-year term of the XII BCK expired on 6/11/2023. The term was extended by 6 months by BCI under Section 8 of the Advocates Act.

On the expiration of this period, the BCI extended the tenure of elected members by 18 months using its power under Rule 32. Subsequently, BCI constituted 3 committees – Office Bearers of the Committee, Executive Committee and Enrolment Committee – and nominated a few members of the BCK to these committees.

The BCI took the stand that the XII BCK was dissolved when the 6-month extension period expired, and the BCI constituted a special committee invoking its power under Rule 32. Rule 32 says that if the verification process cannot be completed within the extended period as prescribed, the BCI can dissolve the State Bar Council and constitute the Special Committee as given under Section 8A of the Advocates Act.

The Court, however, rejected the BCI's contention that the XII BCK was dissolved when the 6-month extension period expired. The Court observed that if BCI had dissolved the BCK, it could not have extended the tenure of the members. The BCI would then have to constitute a Special Committee under 8A of the Advocates' Act.

The Court also noted that the petitioners cannot be kept away from the meeting saying they were not elected members. The Court said that the petitioners were elected and co-opted to maintain the prescribed strength of the BCK as per the Bar Council of Kerala, Rules. The Court held that the petitioners have to be included in the term 'elected members'.

“Since BCI has extended the term of the XIIth BCK by Ext. R2(b) resolution, irrespective of the fact that the petitioners were co-opted to the BCK at later stage, the petitioners cannot be differentiated from the elected members. The Act and Rules do not treat co-opted members as a separate or distinct class”.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates Thomas Abraham, Merciamma Mathew, Aswin P. John, P. Ananthapadmanaban, Paul Baby, Swathy A. P., Thara Elizabeth Thomas

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates M. U. Vijayalakshmi, K. Jaju Babu(Sr.), Rajit

Case No: WP(C) 26651 of 2024

Case Title: Aisha P and Another v Bar Council of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 224