Membership in Bar Association Not Must: HC

Hyderabad: Justice N. Tukaramji of the Telangana High Court ruled that advocates cannot be compelled to join Bar Associations as a pre-condition for practicing law. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by advocate Vijay Gopal challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 6 of the Rules, 2015 framed by the Bar Council of India which mandated compulsory membership in a Bar Association.

The petitioner contended that the impugned provision, though couched as a regulatory mechanism, imposed a compulsory membership in Bar Associations and that vested non-statutory bodies with indirect control over an advocate’s right to practice. Appearing as party-in-person, he argued that the statutory framework under the Advocates Act, 1961 categorically recognised the right of an enrolled advocate to practice law and did not contemplate mandatory enrolment in any Bar Association. He contended that recurring verification requirements, certification obligations and annual membership fees imposed under the impugned regime amounted to substantive burdens unsupported by the parent enactment. He pointed out that the rule was an instance of excessive delegated legislation, and that no new obligations could go beyond the scope of the statute. Per contra, opposing the plea, the State Bar Council contended that Rule 6 was regulatory in character and intended to identify genuine practitioners while facilitating welfare measures for advocates. He maintained that the rule did not mandate compulsory membership, but merely afforded advocates the option either to join a recognised Bar Association or intimate the State Bar Council regarding non-membership and the manner in which welfare benefits would be availed. It was argued that the verification framework was designed to ensure authenticity of legal practice.

After hearing the arguments, the court observed that the Advocates Act did not expressly prescribe membership in a Bar Association as a condition precedent for the exercise of the right to practice law. Justice Tukaramji held that though the Bar Council of India framed rules governing conditions of practice, such authority could not be expanded to create coercive obligations alien to the statutory scheme. The judge observed that any interpretation of Rule 6 rendering Bar Association membership compulsory, or enabling non-statutory associations would be ultra vires the Advocates Act. The Court directed the Bar Council of India to issue appropriate clarifications to all State Bar Councils to make it clear that certification and verification requirements were to function solely as regulatory mechanisms for identification and welfare purposes, and not as coercive conditions impinging upon an advocates statutory and constitutional rights.

Court orders pending payment to contractor

Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti of the Telangana High Court directed the state to release `31.89 lakh due to a contractor for Mission Kakatiya works, along with interest at 6 per cent per annum, holding that payments cannot be withheld after completion of work and issuance of quality certification. The judge was dealing with a writ plea filed by Gona Srinivas Rao, a contractor, alleging non-payment for restoration of Medi Cheruvu in Nalgonda district despite completion of work and issuance of a quality control certificate in 2017. The petitioner contended that the work was executed under an agreement entered in 2015 and a supplemental agreement in 2017, and that the quality of work was certified as satisfactory for Rs.31.89 lakh. It was argued that even after generation of a payment token in October 2022, the amount was not released.

The state submitted that payment would be processed upon consideration of the representation and that the authorities would examine the claim. The judge noted that once work stood completed and certified, the state was bound to release payment within a reasonable time. It was observed that delay of nearly three years after the generation of token was unjustified and that the contractor could not be made to wait indefinitely. Holding that non-payment would cause financial loss and hardship, the judge directed the respondents to release the due amount with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date it became payable, within 16 weeks.