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

Section 9(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 can be broken into two separate checks that every option must pass together: a headcount check and a composition check.

Test 1, headcount:
The section fixes a Disciplinary Committee at exactly three members. Any option proposing five members fails immediately, regardless of how those five are chosen. Applying this, the two five-member options fail straightaway, leaving only the two three-member options.

Test 2, composition:
Of the three members, the statute requires two elected by the Council from its own members and one co-opted from outside advocates meeting the prescribed qualifications. The option proposing all three as elected, with none co-opted, fails this test. The option proposing exactly two elected and one outside co-opted advocate is a precise match.

Conclusion:
Since only one option clears both the headcount test and the composition test, it is the one Section 9(1) actually describes.

\[ \boxed{\text{Three members, two elected from the Council's membership and one co-opted advocate who is not a member of the Council.}} \]

Answer 2

Behind Section 9(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961 lies a policy goal: a body that judges an advocate's professional conduct should be answerable to the Bar Council yet not be entirely made up of Council insiders, so that its decisions are seen as both accountable and impartial. Checking each option against that goal shows why only one fits.

1. Five members, all co-opted: A committee made up entirely of co-opted advocates removes the Council's own elected representatives altogether. That defeats the accountability half of the purpose, since the Council would have no direct say in a committee acting in its name.
2. Three members, two elected and one outside co-opted: Two elected members keep the committee answerable to the Council that constituted it, while the single co-opted advocate, who cannot be a Council member, supplies the outside, independent perspective needed to keep the process fair to the advocate being tried. This balance is exactly what the provision is meant to achieve.
3. Five members, three elected plus two co-opted: Even with elected members inside a larger body, adding two outside co-opted advocates makes the committee larger and more outsider-heavy than the Act contemplates, diluting the tight, accountable structure Section 9(1) sets up.
4. Three members, all elected, junior as Chairman: Making all three members elected, with a junior member chairing, removes the independent outside check entirely and turns the committee into a purely internal Council body. That undercuts the impartiality the co-opted seat is designed to protect.

Only the two elected plus one co-opted structure keeps the committee both accountable to the Council and open to independent judgment.

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.