Madras High Court Orders State Bar Council's Interim Panel Of 'Elected Members' To Handle Affairs Till Permanent Committee Is Constituted
BCI had earlier proposed an interim arrangement involving unelected persons, which was challenged.
The Madras High Court has directed that an Interim Committee comprising elected members of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry shall exclusively manage its affairs and enrolment functions until a permanent statutory committee is formally constituted.The present petitions arose from “administrative interregnum” regarding the interim governance, enrolment and administrative...
The Madras High Court has directed that an Interim Committee comprising elected members of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry shall exclusively manage its affairs and enrolment functions until a permanent statutory committee is formally constituted.
The present petitions arose from “administrative interregnum” regarding the interim governance, enrolment and administrative management of the State Bar Council. The petitioners argued that after new members of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry were elected, an interim arrangement involving unelected persons was subsequently formed by the Bar Council of India to manage the state council's affairs. This violated the “democratic mandate” of the Advocates Act, 1961, the petitioners contended.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan observed:
“The relationship between the Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils is designed as a harmonious federal partnership rather than a hierarchy of subordination. However, when transitional interregnums occur, particularly during the delicate passage from the completion of elections to the formal constitution and assumption of office by newly elected representatives, this equilibrium is tested".
After the Court was informed by the State Bar Council that an Interim Committee comprising exclusively elected members has been formed to address immediate statutory and enrolment requirements, the Court said, “In view of these subsequent developments, the grievance raised by the petitioners regarding the inclusion of unelected persons stands completely extinguished.”
“As a sequel, we hold that the independently constituted Interim Committee comprising the elected members, as reflected in the Resolution dated 04.08.2026, shall exclusively manage the affairs and enrolment functions of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry as an interim arrangement, until the permanent committee is formally constituted in accordance with law,” the Court directed.
The bench, however, refrained from adjudicating upon “wider questions regarding the scope and extent of the supervisory powers of the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961”, leaving all such issues open, in view of the later developments.
Background
The batch of writ petitions was filed by newly elected members of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry and practising advocates, challenging communications issued by the Bar Council of India, as well as an order dated July 31 concerning a “limited interim arrangement” for administering the State Bar Council.
The petitioners contended that after the counting of votes was completed under judicial supervision and 23 newly elected members were notified in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated July 24, 2026, the statutory term of office of the newly elected members commenced under Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961. They also relied on a circular dated May 12, 2026 issued by the BCI, which had permitted elected members to take charge of the day-to-day administrative affairs immediately upon Gazette notification.
Subsequently, the petitioners argued, a “limited interim arrangement” comprising unelected candidates was formed, which was arbitrary and inconsistent with the earlier policy.
The petitioners also contended that the power to manage enrolment procedures rests exclusively with the State Bar Council and its Enrolment Committee under Section 10(1)(b) of the Advocates Act. The petitioners argued that mandating enrolment certificates to be jointly signed by national office-bearers or nominated persons outside the statutory framework would usurp the autonomous jurisdiction of the State Bar Council.
The petitioners placed reliance on the Kerala High Court's judgement in Prasad Chandran and another vs. Bar Council of India, where a similar interim arrangement involving nomination of unelected persons to administer a State Bar Council after election notification had been stayed.
During the hearing, however, the State Bar Council told the High Court that the Administrative Committee, headed by the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu as Ex-Officio Member and comprising newly elected members, had unanimously resolved to convene enrolment meetings and manage the affairs of the State Bar Council till the permanent statutory committees are formally constituted.
The BCI also expressly endorsed this resolution and accepted the interim arrangement consisting of elected members for managing the enrolment and day-to-day statutory affairs of the State Council.
The pleas were disposed of.
Case: K.Balu v Chairman Bar Council of India & others, W.P.No.31323 of 2026
M.Kannan v Bar Council of India & others, W.P.No.31456 of 2026
M.Velmurugan v Bar Council of India & others, W.P.No.31501 of 2026