Plea In Kerala High Court Challenges BCI Chairman's Orders "Controlling" State Bar Council After Fresh Elections

The petition has been filed by advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, an elected member of the XIII Bar Council of Kerala.

According to the petition, the election results for the XIII Bar Council of Kerala were published in the Kerala Gazette on June 16, 2026, thereby constituting the new State Bar Council under Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961.The petitioner argues that upon publication of the results, the tenure of the previous Bar Council and any interim or special arrangement under Section 8A automatically came to an end.

The principal challenge is directed against orders dated June 24 and June 30, 2026, issued by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India constituting an "interim authority" to handle enrolment-related work, welfare fund claims and administrative functions. The June 30 order additionally included former Chairman T.S. Ajith, whose tenure, according to the petitioner, had already expired with the constitution of the XIII Bar Council.

The petitioner contends that the Chairman of the BCI has no independent statutory power to issue such directions and that any authority under Section 48B of the Advocates Act vests only in the Bar Council of India as a statutory body, not in its Chairman acting individually. He further argues that the Advocates Act does not empower the BCI to appoint office-bearers or committees for a duly constituted State Bar Council.

The petition also alleges that despite the publication of the election results, the Secretary of the Bar Council of Kerala failed to convene the first meeting of the XIII Bar Council as required under the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979. The petitioner claims that the Secretary instead acted upon the BCI Chairman's directions, preventing the elected Council from assuming charge.

According to the petition, the delay has adversely affected the functioning of the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund, as appointments required for quorum could not be made by the newly elected Council.

The petitioner has also raised allegations regarding financial administration during the extended tenure of the previous Bar Council.

The petition alleges that more than ₹2.5 crore was disbursed between May 2025 and March 2026 towards an "Advocates Academy" allegedly constituted without statutory authority, and approximately ₹1.5 crore was spent on an e-governance project which, according to the petitioner, failed to meet contractual milestones. It is alleged that these transactions require scrutiny by the newly elected Bar Council rather than persons associated with the previous administration.

The petition further alleges that the Bar Council of India itself had earlier recorded concerns regarding governance lapses, suppression of CBI findings and failure to conduct statutory audits while extending the tenure of the XII Bar Council in 2024.

The petitioner has thus sought quashing of the BCI Chairman's orders dated June 24 and June 30, 2026, a direction to immediately convene the first meeting of the XIII Bar Council of Kerala, and declarations that the XIII Bar Council stood validly constituted on June 16, 2026, and that neither the BCI nor its Chairman could thereafter constitute any interim body to discharge its statutory functions.

The petitioner has also sought interim relief staying the operation of the June 30 order insofar as it includes former Chairman T.S. Ajith in the interim authority, restraining expenditure from Bar Council accounts without approval of the XIII Bar Council, and restraining Ajith from holding himself out as Chairman of the Bar Council of Kerala after June 16, 2026.

Case Title: Yeshwanth Shenoy v Bar Council of India and Ors.

Case No: WP(C) 26232/ 2026