New Delhi, Oct 16 (UNI) An application has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to restrain the Bar Council of India (BCI) from interfering with or assuming control over the conduct of elections to various State Bar Councils.
The plea, filed by Advocate M. Vardhan through Advocate-on-Record Rajesh Singh Chauhan in a pending writ petition, alleges that the BCI’s actions strike at “the very root of representative self-governance within the Bar” and undermine the democratic character of the State Bar Councils envisaged under Sections 3 and 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
“If the ongoing interference of the Bar Council of India is not immediately restrained, the resultant delay will cause irreparable institutional damage by eroding public confidence in the Bar’s self-regulatory framework and rendering the forthcoming elections a mere illusion,” the application states.
The applicant has sought the constitution of a special committee under Section 8-A of the Advocates Act and authorisation of the respective Advocates General to oversee and complete the election process.
The original writ petition challenges Rule 32, added in 2023 to the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, contending that it illegally extends the tenure of elected State Bar Council members beyond the prescribed term under the Advocates Act.
The plea refers to the Supreme Court’s September 24, 2025, order, which directed that elections to all State Bar Councils should be conducted, if not simultaneously, then in a phased manner and completed by January 31, 2026.
However, the present application challenges a BCI communication dated September 25, 2025, stating that it would constitute committees to supervise State Bar Council elections. The applicant argues that this move derails the Supreme Court’s earlier directions and usurps powers vested exclusively in the State Bar Councils.
According to the plea, the BCI’s communication arrogates to itself the power to supervise and conduct State Bar Council elections, including preparing electoral rolls and appointing returning officers and observers, functions that belong solely to the State Bar Councils.
It further notes that until 2011, State Bar Council elections were held in a time-bound and autonomous manner. The introduction of the 2015 Verification Rules, purportedly to address the issue of “fake lawyers,” and the 2023 amendment, have allegedly disrupted this framework.
The Supreme Court had earlier, on April 10, 2023, constituted a committee headed by Justice (retd.) Deepak Gupta to oversee the verification of advocates’ certificates and degrees. The Court had clarified that this committee’s formation could not justify extending State Bar Council terms or delaying elections.
Despite that, the BCI amended Rule 32 in June 2023, mandating that elections would commence only after verification was complete and extending the tenure of incumbent members by two years. The application alleges that this move benefits sitting office bearers, including BCI Vice-Chairman S. Prabhakaran, who was elected to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
The application accuses the BCI of disregarding Supreme Court directions and undermining the rule of law and democratic principles of Bar governance.
“It is manifest that the actions of the Bar Council of India are actuated by motives that cannot be ignored. It has therefore become just and necessary for this Court to issue appropriate directions to ensure that there remains no scope whatsoever for interference or deviation in the faithful implementation of the solemn orders of this Court,” the plea asserts.
As interim relief, the applicant seeks to restrain the BCI from interfering in or controlling State Bar Council elections and requests the constitution of a High-Powered Committee headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to oversee the BCI’s administrative functions until new office bearers are elected.
