Question

Which of the following options correctly states the composition of a Disciplinary Committee of a Bar Council as prescribed under Section 9(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961?

• A. Five members — all co-opted from advocates having not less than ten years' standing at the Bar.
• B. Three members — two elected from the Council's membership and one co-opted advocate possessing the prescribed qualifications, who is not a member of the Council.
• C. Five members — three elected by the Council and two co-opted senior advocates from outside the Council.
• D. Three members — all elected by the Council, with the most junior member serving as Chairman.

Hint:

Section 9(1) mandate: "3 members = 2 Elected + 1 Co-opted (non-member)." This ratio is crucial for the independence of the disciplinary proceedings!

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
The Advocates Act, 1961, governs the professional ethics and disciplinary procedures for advocates in India. The Disciplinary Committee is the statutory body tasked with hearing and deciding professional misconduct cases.

Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
- Section 9(1) of the Advocates Act explicitly states that a Bar Council shall constitute one or more Disciplinary Committees, each consisting of three members.
- The composition is strictly defined: two members must be elected by the Council from amongst its members, and one member must be co-opted by the Council from amongst advocates who possess the prescribed qualifications and are not members of the Council.

Step 3: Final Answer:
This specific structure ensures both internal representation and external/independent perspective. Option (B) is the correct description.

Answer 2

The question tests the precise composition of a Bar Council Disciplinary Committee as fixed by Section 9(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961. Each option proposes a different headcount and a different method of constituting the committee, so the analysis has to check both against each other.

1. Five members, all co-opted: Section 9(1) fixes the strength of a Disciplinary Committee at three, not five, so this option fails on headcount alone. It also gets the method wrong: the Act never allows the entire committee to be co-opted from outside the Council, because that would remove any check by the Council's own elected members over a body deciding misconduct cases involving fellow advocates.
2. Three members, two elected and one outside co-opted advocate: This tracks the statute exactly. Two of the three members are elected by the Bar Council from among its own members, giving the committee institutional accountability, while the third is co-opted from advocates of standing who are not members of the Council, bringing in an independent voice untied to Council politics.
3. Five members, three elected plus two outside co-opted: Like the first option, this fails purely on numbers, since the Act nowhere authorises a five-member Disciplinary Committee under Section 9(1). Adding more elected or co-opted members than the statute allows does not create a valid alternative composition.
4. Three members, all elected, junior as Chairman: The headcount of three is right, but the composition is not: Section 9(1) requires one of the three to be a co-opted outsider, not a Council member. Making all three elected removes the independent element the section is designed to bring in, and the statute says nothing about seniority determining who chairs the committee.

Only the option with two elected members and one outside co-opted advocate keeps both the number of members and the elected-versus-co-opted split exactly as Section 9(1) lays it down.

Therefore, the correct answer is Three members, two elected from the Council's membership and one co-opted advocate possessing the prescribed qualifications, who is not a member of the Council.