The Rajasthan High Court has stayed the amendments to the by-laws of the Rajasthan High Court Advocates' Association, which had extended the tenure of office bearers from one year to two years.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman passed the order while appointing an Administrative Committee to manage the association’s affairs until the final decision on the petition.

The Court noted that the amendment violated Section 12 of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958. "We are prima facie of the view that the amendment in the by-laws is in blatant violation of the provisions contained in Section 12 of the Act. The term of the office bearers of the Bar Association, if taken to be one year, has already come to an end on 13.12.2024," the Bench observed.

The Court stayed the operation of the resolution extending the tenure and appointed an Administrative Committee comprising Senior Advocates Jagmal Singh Choudhary, Dr. Sachin Acharya, and GR Poonia to oversee the association's functioning.

Challenge to Amendment

The petition was filed by Jodhpur-based lawyer Sunil Vyas, challenging the March 2024 resolution that amended the by-laws to extend the office bearers’ tenure. The petitioner argued that procedural requirements under Section 12 of the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act were not followed. Specifically, he contended that:

1. No written or printed report of the proposed amendment was circulated among members.

2. The mandatory 10-day prior notice of the meeting was not issued.

3. A second special meeting, required to confirm the amendment, was not held.

4. The meeting on April 16, 2024, where the amendment was passed, had only 70-75 members present, despite the association having around 2,500 members, thus lacking quorum.

Court Rejects Bar Association’s Defense

The bar association defended the amendment, claiming that it complied with its Memorandum of Association and bylaws, and that the proposal was displayed on the notice board before being passed by a two-thirds majority of attending members.

However, the High Court rejected these contentions, stating that the respondents failed to meet statutory requirements. The court found no evidence of a written report submission, no proof of notices sent to all members, and no record of a second special meeting.

"On prima facie consideration, as against the clear stand taken by the petitioner that the requirements of Section 12 of the Act have not been complied with, the respondents’ reply does not satisfy the mandatory requirements," the Court held.

With the amendment stayed, the matter has been listed for further hearing on March 17, 2025.

Cause Title: Sunil Vyas v. The Bar Council of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19006/2024]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Anand Purohit, Advocates Ranjeet Joshi, Vishwajeet Joshi, Kapil Bissa, B.P. Mathur, Manoj Kumar, Vikram, M.S. Purohit, K.S. Rajpurohit, Himanshu Maheshwari, R.R. Chhaparwal, Rajat Chhaparwal, Vinod Choudhary

Respondent: Senior Advocates Ravi Bhansali, Manoj Bhandari, AAG N.S. Rathore, AAAG Arpit Samaria, Advocates Vipul Dharnia, Aniket Tater, Muktesh Maheshwari, Gaurav Raka, Himanshu Shrimali, S.S. Choudhary, K.S. Rajpurohit

Click here to read/download the Order


Chief Justice Manindra Mohan ShrivastavaJustice Munnuri Laxman

Sukriti Mishra

Legal Correspondent

Sukriti Mishra is a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She extensively covers the Supreme Court. She has completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022, she has previously worked with another legal news portal, where she extensively covered Delhi High Court and Trial Courts. She believes Legal Journalism gives her creative freedom and legal in depth practical knowledge. She enjoys the diversity of her profession. Sukriti truly believes in bringing the raw courtroom exchanges to the general public through proper channels, especially with the high legal awareness in society.