State Bar Council Can't Control Or Regulate District Bar Association Elections: Allahabad High Court

The Court observed that while the Bar Council of India (BCI) has the power of "general supervision and control" over State Bar Councils, this authority does not extend to directing the State Bar Council to regulate the elections of district Bar Associations.

Briefly put, in this case, a petition was filed by Rama Nand Srivastava, a practising advocate and a member of the Kanpur Bar Association. He is also a prospective candidate for the post of President in the forthcoming 2025-26 Bar Association election.

His plea objected to an order of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh directing all Bar Associations in the state not to hold or notify elections during the period commencing November 15, 2025, to February 2026.

This directive was issued following a communication from the Bar Council of India (respondent no.2), aimed at ensuring that the electoral process of the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council proceeds "without distraction or conflicting schedules of proposed Bar Association elections during the same time."

During the hearing, the Court questioned the BCI and the State Bar Council regarding the specific authority or provision of law that empowered them to place such an embargo.

The BCI's counsel drew HC's attention to Section 7(g) and Section 48-B of the Advocates Act, arguing that the BCI exercises general supervision and control over the State Bar Councils and can issue necessary directions which the State Bar Council should comply.

However, the Court found this justification to be irrational as it noted thus:

"Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Bar Council of India did not have the authority control or regulate the elections of Bar Association, which are governed by their own bye laws. They had the authority to issue the said letter to the State Bar Council but the State Bar Council had no authority under the existing law to pass a direction to the Bar Associations of the state to withhold their elections for the aforementioned period."

Thus, disposing of the petition, the High Court observed that the State Bar Council has no authority under any statute or rule to regulate the elections of the Bar Association. Consequently, the Kanpur Bar Association was permitted to hold its elections strictly in accordance with its Byelaws.

However, to ensure administrative propriety, the Court directed that while notifying the schedule, the Bar Association must ensure there is no clash between the election schedule of the Bar Council of UP and the Bar Association. The HC mandated a 10-day gap between the two elections.