Justice CS Dias, Kerala High Court
Kerala High Court: Co-Opted Members Of Bar Council Cannot Be Differentiated From Elected Members; Cannot Be Treated As Separate Or Distinct Class
|The Kerala High Court allowed a Writ Petition by the members of the Bar Council of Kerala who were co-opted to fill vacancies, concerning their rights and privileges.
The Kerala High Court has held that the co-opted members of the Bar Council can neither be differentiated from the elected members, nor can they be treated as a separate or distinct class.
The Court allowed a Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners, members of the Bar Council of Kerala who were co-opted to fill vacancies, concerning their rights and privileges. After the Petitioners were excluded from meetings, with the Bar Council of India (BCI) argued that Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, only mentions the extension of the term of "elected members/office bearers" of the State Bar Council, not co-opted members.
A Single Bench of Justice CS Dias held, “There is no dispute that the petitioners were elected by the members and co-opted to the XIIth BCK, as per the procedure contemplated under the Rules, to ensure that the BCK functions with the statutory strength. Since BCI has extended the term of the XIIth BCK by Ext. R 2(b) resolution, irrespective of the fact that the petitioners were co-opted to the BCK at a later stage, the petitioners cannot be differentiated from the elected members. The Act and the Rules do not treat co-opted members as a separate or distinct class.”
Advocate Thomas Abraham appeared for the Petitioners, while Senior Advocate K. Jaju Babu represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioners contended that the extension granted by the BCI should apply to all members, submitting that co-opted members cannot be treated differently from elected members and are entitled to the same rights.
Court’s Observations
The High Court noted that the petitioners were co-opted as per Rule 17 of Chapter IV of the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979, to fill vacancies.
“It is also to be noted that the request of the BCK in Ext.R2 (a) letter was to extend the term of the XIIth BCK as per the amended Rule 32 of the Verification Rules. Accordingly, by Ext.R2 (b) resolution, the BCI extended the term of the elected members of the BCK. Taking the words ‘elected members’ as a cue, the petitioners are not being invited to the programs/functions of the XIIth BCK because they are co-opted members and not elected members,” the Bench noted.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “In light of the above discussions, I allow the writ petition by declaring that the elected members of the XIIth Bar Council of Kerala in Ext R2 (b) resolution shall also mean and include the petitioners. The petitioners shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of elected members of the Bar Council of Kerala as mentioned in Ext.R2 (b) resolution.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Aisha P & Anr. v. Bar Council Of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:27410)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Thomas Abraham, Merciamma Mathew, Aswin. P. John, R. Ananthapadmanaban, Paul Baby, Swathy A.P. and Thara Elizabeth Thomas
Respondents: Senior Advocate K. Jaju Babu; Advocates M.U. Vijayalakshmi and Rajit