Crossing A Line : BCI Chairperson's Letter Against Kerala High Court Judge For Questioning Nomination Fee Hike Is Unwarranted

The BCI notified the State Bar Council elections last year in September, after the Supreme Court had directed them to conclude elections by January, 2026. Subsequently, BCI, through its Principal Secretary, issued a circular for elections along with the steep fee hike, claiming that there is a shortfall of funds consequent to the cap on enrollment fee to Rs. 750 due to the Supreme Court's Gaurav Kumar judgment(2024).

In its circular, it said: “It is further to be noted that the nomination fee for contesting the elections for the membership of the State Bar Council will be Rs.1,25,000/(Rupees One lakh twenty-five thousand) and the amount will be non-refundable. This decision is being taken in view of the fact that because of the reduction in the enrolment fee, there is acute shortage of funds with all the State Bar Councils and State Bar Councils are unable to bear the expenses of elections. Earlier, the State Bar Councils used to get a minimum/approximate amount of Rs.16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen thousand) at the time of the enrolment of the candidates, but by virtue of order of Hon'ble Apex Court, the said amount has been reduced to Rs.600/- (Rupees Six hundred) only.”

When the matter was heard on January 23, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas of the Kerala High Court questioned how the BCI was utilising this money and for what activities. He remarked that if the BCI members are using this money for travelling by first class for committee meetings. 

Subsequent to the BCI's fee hike circular, various petitions were filed in the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the fee. However, the Supreme Court refused to entertain the petition.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court recently quashed the BCI's September circular, enhancing the non-refundable nomination fee from Rs. Rs.30,000 to Rs.1,25,000. The High Court said that the BCI's September decision was an executive order issued by the Principal Secretary, and no source of power was traceable to any resolution. The High Court found that the resolution was passed way back in December 2024 and had only two paragraphs. The High Court held that the December 2024 resolution was neither communicated to the stakeholders nor was it made public. It was remarked that statutory bodies can't conduct proceedings in secrecy. It therefore held that the resolution couldn't override the statutory notification issued in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette notifying the nomination fees to Rs. 30,000. The High Court also observed that such an abrupt increase in the nomination fee would prevent a worthy candidate from filing a nomination due to economic constraints. 

The BCI Chairman, in his letter, terms the remarks of the Kerala High Court as “observations”, casting aspersions on BCI during elections. However, these are merely oral remarks made by a judge during a judicial proceeding. One cannot disregard the legitimate grievances raised by many in the legal fraternity against the nomination fee hike, as reflected in proceedings by many parties in different High Courts. Many advocates have called out the steep hike as not just exorbitant but also as not backed by any budgetary analysis or data showing the “lack of funds”. Such matters routinely invite judicial scrutiny on grounds of arbitrariness and proportionality, which goes to the root of Article 14.

In the matter pertaining to the Supreme Court Bar Association's reforms( SCBA v B.D. Kaushik), suggestions were made to increase the nomination fees from Rs. 5000 to Rs.1,00,000. However, the Committee headed by former judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Nageswara Rao, did not agree with the suggestion. In his report, he stated that the Association could not demonstrate the lack of funds or how the increase in nomination fees would improve the quality of the candidates. He said: “A manifold hike in nomination fee sends the wrong message that elections are meant to be contested only by lawyers with deep pockets.”

When the nomination fee for contesting the Lok Sabha elections remains Rs. 25,000 for the general category, one may raise bona fidely seek justifications for the steep hike in the election nomination fee.  

Misra says that BCI regularly conducts seminars and conferences where retired judges are invited. He claims that pursuant to the elections, BCI is expected to incur an expenditure of Rs. 20 crore toward travel, boarding, and honorarium of the chairpersons, members of the High Powered Election Committees etc, all of whom are former judges of High Courts.  In this context, it may be noted that yesterday, the Chief Justice of India also questioned the BCI for not paying travel allowances to retired judges who are tasked with monitoring the elections. CJI Surya Kant also commented that the nomination fee was hiked under the pretext of generating funds, and asked the logic of citing funds crunch to deny allowances to retired Judes.

BCI is a statutory body meant to represent the grievances of advocates and to work for their welfare across the country. Surely, like any other administrative body, it needs to raise funds. As a matter of propriety, BCI was expected to make an adequate representation before the High Court with data and facts to show its administrative crisis.

It is completely out of line and undignified for the BCI Chairman to write such a letter threatening a sitting Judge with administrative measures when BCI has no such power to do so. Neither the Indian Constitution nor any legislation empowers the BCI to have any say in matters relating to the appointment or transfer of judges.

It is well settled that judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and the Kerala High Court, in exercise of its judicial review powers, is very much empowered to scrutinise the decision of a statutory body like BCI on the touchstone of Constitutional principles. As any responsible party to a litigation should do, it was incumbent upon the BCI to present its side before the High Court. If there are adverse orders passed, there are appellate remedies available.  Instead of submitting itself to the judicial process, BCI seems to be exhibiting an 'I shall not be questioned' attitude, and has attempted to browbeat the Judge by writing a letter against him with subtle threats of transfer. Such bullying tactics do not behove a statutory body of advocates, who are duty-bound to show deference to the judicial process and fiercely uphold judicial independence.

BCI Chairperson, as a senior advocate himself, must remember that judicial discipline must not be forgotten.