"Against Interest Of Advocates”: AP High Court Quashes BCI Order Enhancing State Bar Council Election Nomination Fee From ₹30K To ₹1.25 Lakh
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside proceedings by the Principal Secretary, Bar Council of India (BCI) enhancing non-refundable nomination fee for contesting elections to the State Bar Councils from Rs.30,000 to Rs.1,25,000.The enhancement was made on the grounds that the respective State Bar Councils were facing acute shortage of funds as the Supreme Court had reduced the enrolment...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has set aside proceedings by the Principal Secretary, Bar Council of India (BCI) enhancing non-refundable nomination fee for contesting elections to the State Bar Councils from Rs.30,000 to Rs.1,25,000.
The enhancement was made on the grounds that the respective State Bar Councils were facing acute shortage of funds as the Supreme Court had reduced the enrolment fee of Advocates from Rs.16,000 to Rs.600. While the election process commenced on 03.01.2026, writ petitions were filed much before in 2025, challenging the BCI proceedings.
Noting that the abrupt multifold increase of the nomination-fee would frustrate the interests of the Advocate community as they may be deprived of valuable services of a candidate who could not file nomination due to his inability to afford such nomination-fee, Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad held,
“It is a matter of common knowledge that every prospective contestant is not endowed with the same economic comfort. There can be a situation where a candidate who, if elected, would put in his best efforts in furthering the cause of the Advocate Community and would foster the objectives under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the abrupt multifold increase of non-refundable nomination-fee can deter such a worthy candidate from even filing a nomination due to his or her financial limitation. It goes without saying that a reasonable and equal opportunity should be given to candidates who are willing to participate in the election, without which the objective of democratic principle of election under the Advocates Act, 1961 would be an empty formality.”
“… this Court would have no hesitation to hold that such an abrupt increase of the non-refundable nomination-fee would prevent a worthy candidate from filing nomination due to his economic constraint and such a situation is neither in the interest of the Advocate Community inasmuch as the Advocate community may have been deprived of the services of a dedicated office bearer nor is it in tune with Article 14 of the Constitution of India".
Examining the extract of the impugned proceedings, the Court observed that the proceedings did not refer to any decision or resolution by the BCI, and also does not reflect the source of power under which the Principal Secretary has issued the proceedings.
It said, “Despite the fact that the challenge has been made by the Writ Petitioners about the competence of the Principal Secretary of the Bar Council of India to issue such Proceeding without any foundation or basis, the Counter-Affidavit is blissfully silent about the manner and power under which the Principal Secretary of the Bar Council of India has issued this Proceeding.”
The Court was also intimated about a Resolution dated 07.12.2024, whereby the BCI had resolved to enhance the nomination fee of State Bar Councils to 1,25,000, which was neither communicated to the Bar Councils of the respective States nor mentioned in the counter affidavit.
Noting that statutory bodies cannot issue proceedings in secrecy and that proceedings must be made public and communicated to all stakeholders, the court said “…if a Resolution has been passed, the power that is traceable to the Bar Council of India to make such Resolution has not been mentioned anywhere. A mere Resolution, per se, does not assume a statutory compliance inasmuch as the same has to be published and also be communicated to the respective State Bar Councils in a timely manner.”
Questioning whether the resolution in questioning was intended to be concealed as no material was placed about resolution being made public it said:
“Despite the fact that the deponent of the Counter-Affidavit of the Bar Council of India is none other than the Principal Secretary himself, the said Counter-Affidavit is blissfully silent about it without even a whisper. This conduct also raises doubts in the mind of the Court whether this purported Resolution of 07.12.2024 was intended to be concealed to the stakeholders and also to this Court? In the absence of any material placed on record as regards the alleged Resolution of the Bar Council of India dated 07.12.2024 and such Resolution not being made known to public and also in the absence of the source of power by which the Principal Secretary has issued the impugned Proceeding dated 25.09.2025, the impugned Proceeding shall just be treated as an 'Executive Order' which would not have the force of Law. These deficiencies would not only go to the root of the matter but are also incurable at this point of time.”
On the justification that the amount was increased to meet expenditure of various aspects, the Court held that the fee could at most increased to Rs.50,000. It said that the purported BCI resolution does not indicate the reasons and it only reflects a mechanical process by mechanically fixing the non-refundable nomination-fee as Rs.1,25,000/- because the State Bar Council of Utter Pradesh has unanimously resolved to increase the nomination-fee to Rs.1,50,000.
Stating that conditions and circumstances vary from State to State the court set aside the resolution.
Case Title: Andhra Lawyers Association and Ors V. The Bar Council of India and another
Case Number: WRIT PETITION Nos: 29216, 30019 & 30063 of 2025