Awadh Bar Association Elections: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Allahabad HC's Guidelines To Conduct Fresh Elections

The matter was heard by the bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna. While dismissing the SLP against the HC directions, the bench said that the reasons for dismissal will be stated later.

"The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.Reasoned Order to follow", the bench said.

Senior Advocate R Balasubramanian appeared for the petitioners (Amit Sachan and Alok Tripathi).

Case Before Allahabad High Court

The bench of Justices Ritu Raj Awasthi and Dinesh Kumar Singh in the suo motu case relating to the Election of Awadh Bar Association while cancelling the entire election process which was held amid the ruckus on August 14 had framed guidelines for conducting the election on September 25.

The Court had made it mandatory that for a Member of Awadh Bar Association to participate in the election 2021 either for the purpose of contesting the election or casting his/her vote, among other conditions, one has to be a regular practitioner of the High Court, Lucknow.

Thereafter, an explanation was attached to the same so as to clarify who could be called a regular practitioner.

Modifying its earlier order (dated August 24) in the suo motu case relating to the Election of Awadh Bar Association, the High Court on August 27 relaxed the criteria determining 'regular practitioner' of this Court (for the purpose of contesting the election or casting his/her vote).

Therefore, in order to ease the procedure of election of Awadh Bar Association for the current year i.e., 2021, the Court modified the order dated August 24 by relaxing the conditions given in the explanation in the following manner:

(I)  The period of three years shall be reduced to two years.

(II)  The minimum cases filed in a year for the last two years shall be ten cases for the year 2019 and 5 cases for the year 2020.

(III) The Lawyers whose houses are on Lucknow-Barabanki road or in the colonies on the Lucknow-Barabanki road shall be treated to be residents of Lucknow.

(IV) The Advocate-Oath Commissioners shall be treated to be 'regular practitioners'.

(V)   All the Chamber allottees shall be included in the definition of 'regular practitioner'.

Case Title: Amit Sachan & Anr v Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh

Click Here To Read/ Download Order