1 2025:CGHC:40370-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4255 of 2025 Varunendra Mishra S/o Late Shri R.D. Mishra Aged About 46 Years R/o House Number 326, Bazar Chowk, Yadunandan Nagar, Tifra, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur C.G. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 Bar Council Of India New Delhi Through Its Secretary, 21 Rouse Avenue Institutional Area Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi (Delhi) 2 State Bar Council Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, New High Court Premises, Bilaspur, Bodri, District Bilaspur C.G. 3 State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Law And Legislative Affairs Department, Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. --- Respondent(s) WPC No. 4292 of 2025 JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.13 10:35:18 +0530 2 Bhajan Kumar Jangde S/o Raju Lal Jangde Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Doma, P.O. Sejbahar, Raipur C.G. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 Bar Council Of India New Delhi Through Its Secretary, 21 Rouse Avenue Institutional Area Near Bal Bhawan, New Delhi (Delhi). 2 State Bar Council Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, New High Court Premised, Bilaspur, Bordi District Bilaspur C.G. 3 The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Law And Legislative Affairs Department, Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District Raipur C.G. --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Siddharth Dubey and Mr. Ankur Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12/08/2025 1. Since common grounds involved in both the petitions they are being considered and decided by this common order. 3 2. Heard Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Siddharth Dubey and Mr. Ankur Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Dy. A.G. appearing for the respondents/State and Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 & 2. 3. The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: 10.1 Reading down Chapter-III of the Rules, 2016 to extent it completely debars the Office Bearer(s) of any Bar Association (except Supreme Court Bar Association)including the petitioner to participate in the State Bar Council Elections during their incumbency and allow participation of the petitioner and/or Office Bearer(s) of any Bar Association(s)in the State Bar Council Elections warranting the petitioner and/or Office Bearer(s) of any Bar Association(s) to resign from their respective post(s) only after their successful election as Member of the State Bar Council/with the rider that the petitioner and/or incumbent Office Bearer(s) of any Bar Association(s) will resign only after their successful election as Member of the State Bar Council. 10.2 Any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. In WPC No. 4255 of 2025, the petitioner contended that he is a regular practitioner and is a Member of C.G. High Court Bar Association since 2006. He was elected as office bearer/ Secretary of the High 4 Court Bar Association on 31.10.2023. In WPC No. 4292 of 2025, the contention of the petitioner is that he is a regular practitioner since last more than 2 decades and is member of Raipur, Bar Association. According to him he was elected as the office bearer/ Library Secretary of Raipur Bar Association on 09.02.2024. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that on 20.09.2022, the Bar Council of India framed the Uniform Rules (and Mandatory Guidelines) for the Elections of Bar Councils, 2016 (for short ‘the Rules, 2016’). The said Rules were duly published in the gazette of India. According to the petitioners, Chapter-III of the Rules, 2016 speaks about office bearers of Bar Associations ineligible to be the members of Bar council. They would submit that the said provision discriminate between the office bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association and State bar Associations without any rationale while curtailing the statutory right of the petitioners to participate in the elections of the State Bar Councils. They would submit that even if parallels are drawn from Article 101 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and Chapter VI of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 the logical conclusion would be to make the Office Bearer(s) of the State Bar Association(s) resign when they are elected as Member of the State Bar Council and to curb their participation in the Elections itself. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose the aforesaid submission. 5 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents attached. 8. For the sake of convenience, it would be appropriate to quote Chapter -III of the Rules 2016, which reads as under:- Chapter III Office-bearers of Bar Associations ineligible to be the members of Bar Council:- An Advocate, who is an office-bearer of any Bar Association (except Supreme Court Bar Association) shall not be eligible to contest the election of State Bar Council. However, if such office-bearer has already resigned from his post before the date of notification of elections of State Bar Council, he shall be entitled to contest the elections of State Bar Council. The Returning Officer shall reject the nomination paper of any such persons who were/are office- bearers of any Bar Association on the date of notification of elections of concerned State Bar Councils. 9. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are regular practitioners and they are elected as Secretary of High Court Bar Association and Library Secretary of Raipur Bar Association respectively. It is also the admitted fact that the election notification for the State Bar Council of C.G. published on 07.04.2025 and according to the said notification the election date is fixed on 30.09.2025. 6 10. The objects and Statements of the Rules, 2016 itself provides an explanation and the reason for which the office-bearers of a Bar Association are not eligible to contest the election of State Bar Council. It specifically provides that the office bearer of the Supreme Court Bar Association are not supposed to indulge in the election disputes of any local Bar Association and Supreme Court Bar Association has the members from throughout the country, the office-bearers of Supreme Court Bar Association shall not be debarred from contesting the elections of the State Bar Councils to which they are enrolled. However, the members of the Bar Association of High Court or District Court may have interest and may indulge in the election dispute of any local Bar Association and for which there is a prohibition prescribed under the Rules, 2016 to contest the election of the State Bar Council by the office-bearers of the Bar Association. 11. In the Objects and Statements of the Rules, 2016 it has been categorically provided that the office-bearers of any Bar Association would not be eligible to contest the election of State Bar Councils. However, the word ‘ office-bearer’ shall include President, Vice- President, Secretaries/ General Secretaries only. 12. Bare perusal of Objects and Statements of the Rules, 2016 it is manifest that the office-bearers of lower office than the aforesaid posts shall be eligible to contest the elections of State Bar Councils. Moreover, since the office-bearers of Supreme Court Bar Association are not supposed to indulge in the election disputes of any local Bar 7 Association and Supreme Court Bar Association has the members from throughout the country, the office-bearers of Supreme Court Bar Association shall not be debarred from contesting the elections of the State Bar Councils to which they are enrolled. 13. The petitioners who are the office bearers of C.G. Bar Association and Raipur Bar Association are not eligible to contest the election of the State Bar Council at par with the members of the Supreme Court Bar Association. Even otherwise, once the election schedule has been published, the petitioners cannot be allowed to contest the election after tendering resignation from their earlier post. If they are interested to contest the election they ought to have tendered the resignation of their earlier office much prior to issuance of the election notification by the State Bar Council. 14. Chapter-III of the Rules, 2016 categorically provides that if the office bearers has already resigned from his post before the date of notification of elections of State Bar Council he shall be allowed to contest the elections of State Bar Council. It further provides that the Returning Officer shall reject the nomination paper of any such persons who were/are office-bearers of any Bar Association on the date of notification of elections of concerned State Bar Councils. 15. The Objects and Statements of the Rules, 2016 very categorically provides that in case of any election- dispute of Bar Association election coming before the Council in which any Bar Council members have interest, such members succeed in applying their undue influence in the 8 State Bar Councils to get the dispute decided as they like. Therefore, the Council has felt it necessary to stop such practice. 16. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and particularly considering the fact that there is no illegality or irregularity in Chapter III of the Rules, 2016, both the writ petitions liable to be and are hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Gowri