The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (BCUP) is also adversely affected by the establishment of a three-member committee for the conduct of its elections by the Bar Council of India (BCI).
The decision of the Bar Council of India (BCI) to set up a nine-member committee to oversee the operations of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (BCUP) was challenged by the BCUP before the Delhi High Court (Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh vs Bar Council of India).
The BCUP is also dissatisfied with BCI’s decision to form a three-member committee to oversee BCUP elections. Given the essence of the conflict, Justice Prathiba M Singh’s single-judge Bench asked BCI’s counsel to pursue “urgent guidance” in the case.
The BCUP’s counsel told the Court that, according to a resolution of 24 January 2021, the BCUP had overwhelmingly agreed that Rohitshav Kumar Aggarwal would continue to serve as the President of the BCUP.
The BCUP resolution was, in essence, superseded by the BCI in the impugned circulars dated January 19, 2021, and February 2, 2021.
The BCUP’s bank accounts have since been put under the oversight of the BCI’s three-member election committee.
On the other hand, BCI claimed that the new term of Chair of the BCUP was split between two people, i.e., for six months each, which was not appropriate in compliance with the relevant laws.
The BCUP replied by saying that such an agreement had already been accepted by the BCI.
For BCUP, Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora appeared with advocates Saurabh Soni, Mannat Singh, Shishir Prakash and Karuna Krishan Thareja.
BCI was represented by lawyers Rajiv Bansal and Preet Pal Singh. On March 3, the case will be heard again.
