'No Justification In Barring Bar Association Officer Bearers From Bar Council Elections' : Supreme Court Asks BCI To Reconsider Rule

The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Bar Council of India to reconsider its rule which bars office bearers of Bar Associations from contesting elections to State Bar Councils.

With this direction, a bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi disposed of a writ petition challenging Chapter III of the Bar Council of India Uniform Rules (and Mandatory Guidelines) for the Elections of Bar Councils, 2016.

The impugned provision states that an advocate who is an office-bearer of any Bar Association, except the Supreme Court Bar Association, shall not be eligible to contest the election of a State Bar Council. It further provides that the Returning Officer shall reject the nomination papers of any such person who was or is an office-bearer of any Bar Association on the date of notification of elections of the concerned State Bar Council.

“By the impugned Rule, office bearers of Bar Associations of District Courts and High Courts are said to be deprived from contesting elections. Prima facie we see no justification for creating the artificial distinction under the Rules. We consequently direct the Bar Council of India to reconsider the provision and make a suitable amendment within one week”, the Court observed.

CJI Surya Kant, however, clarified that the BCI could impose a condition that after election, one cannot continue to be an office-bearer of both the Bar Association and the State Bar Council.

The petition was filed by Dhanya Kumar Jain, President of the High Court Bar Association, Jabalpur, Paritosh Trivedi, Secretary of the same association, and Manish Kumar Mishra, President of the Jabalpur District Bar Association. They challenged the constitutional validity of Chapter III of the 2016 Rules on the ground that it renders office-bearers of Bar Associations ineligible to contest elections to the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council.

According to the petition, the Advocates Act, 1961 delegates certain powers to State Bar Councils and the Bar Council of India. The plea stated that under Section 6(1)(g) of the Advocates Act, the power to provide for the election of members of a State Bar Council vests with the respective State Bar Councils, and the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh has framed the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Election Rules, 1968 in exercise of this power.

The petitioners argued that the impugned Rules were without jurisdiction, and the Bar Council of India could at best rely on Section 49(1)(ab) of the Advocates Act, which enables it to prescribe qualifications and disqualifications for membership of a Bar Council. They contended that this does not empower the BCI to frame rules governing the election process of State Bar Councils or to provide for rejection of nomination papers at the threshold.

They also contended that the rule is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, as it singles out certain office-bearers while permitting others to contest, and exempts the Supreme Court Bar Association without basis.

The Supreme Court observed that prima facie it sees no justification for creating the artificial distinction under the rules, and directed the Bar Council of India to reconsider the provision and make a suitable amendment within one week.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 226/2026

Case Title – Dhanya Kumar Jain v. Bar Council of India