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. Five members three elected by the Council and two co-opted senior advocates from outside the Council.
• C. 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.
• D. Three members all elected by the Council, with the most junior member serving as Chairman.

Hint:

For Advocates Act questions: \[ \boxed{\text{Disciplinary Committee = 3 Members}} \] Two elected from the Council and one co-opted advocate from outside the Council.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Getting this question right depends on checking two separate facts about the Disciplinary Committee rather than just one, its total strength, and the source of each of its members.

1. Total strength: Section 9(1) fixes every Disciplinary Committee at three members. This alone eliminates both options that state the Committee has five members.
2. Source of the members: of the three, two are elected from among the existing members of the Bar Council, and the third is co-opted from outside the Council, an advocate who is not himself a member of the Council but who possesses the qualifications prescribed for co-option.
3. Why an outsider is co-opted at all: including someone from outside the Council's own membership brings in independent professional judgment to disciplinary proceedings, rather than leaving the decision entirely to persons who are themselves part of the Council's internal politics.
4. Checking the remaining three-member option: an option describing three members but all of them elected, with the junior-most as Chairman, gets the total right but the composition wrong, it leaves no room for the co-opted outsider that Section 9(1) requires.

Only the option that gets both the total strength of three and the two-elected-plus-one-outside-co-opted composition correct matches Section 9(1).

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.

Answer 2

A quick way to approach this question is to sort the four options into two groups by their stated total strength, and only then look at how the members are chosen within the correct group.

1. Group of five members options: two of the four options describe a Committee of five members, one made up entirely of co-opted senior advocates, and the other split three elected and two co-opted. Section 9(1) fixes the Committee at three members, not five, so both options in this group fail on the threshold question of size.
2. Group of three members options: the remaining two options both correctly state three members, so the choice between them turns entirely on composition.
3. Testing all elected, junior as Chairman: this describes a Committee with no outside participation at all, and ties the chairmanship to being the junior-most member. Neither detail matches Section 9(1), which specifically reserves one seat for a co-opted advocate who is not a Council member.
4. Testing two elected, one co-opted non-member: this is the only option, among those with the correct total of three, that also correctly reserves one seat for someone outside the Council's own membership who separately satisfies the prescribed qualifications for co-option.

Filtering first by total strength, three, not five, and then by whether an outside co-opted member is included leaves only one option consistent with Section 9(1).

So 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.