BCI CHAIR OBJECTS TO KERALA HC JUDGE’S REMARKS ON NOMINATION FEE, WRITES TO CJI:

The Chairperson of the Bar Council of India (BCI), Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, has written to the Chief Justice of India expressing strong objection to certain remarks made by a single judge of the Kerala High Court regarding the nomination fee prescribed for Bar Council elections. In his communication dated January 26, Mishra conveyed what he described as a serious institutional response from the BCI to the observations of the High Court.

The controversy arose from proceedings before Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas of the Kerala High Court on January 23, while hearing a petition challenging the validity of the ₹1.25 lakh nomination fee required to contest Bar Council elections. During the hearing, the judge questioned the rationale behind charging such a high amount and raised concerns about the purpose for which the funds were being utilized. The court also suggested that the imposition of such a fee could potentially invite scrutiny or investigation.

In his letter, the BCI Chairperson characterized these observations as unfounded and irresponsible, stating that they undermined the credibility of the apex elected body representing advocates. He further objected to the High Court entertaining the petition at all, pointing out that the Supreme Court has already issued directions restraining High Courts and other courts from adjudicating election-related disputes concerning Bar Council elections. According to the BCI, such matters are required to be addressed only within the framework laid down and approved by the Supreme Court.

Mishra expressed concern that repeated judicial criticism of this nature could disrupt the institutional balance between the Bar and the Bench. He cautioned that if what he described as persistent judicial attacks on elected bar bodies continued, the legal fraternity, through its representative institutions, might be compelled to explore lawful collective measures. These could include seeking administrative remedies, such as the transfer of judges, as well as initiating constitutional and legal steps to protect institutional integrity and public confidence.

The letter emphasized that Bar Council elections across the country are currently being conducted strictly in accordance with a mechanism approved by the Supreme Court. This framework includes oversight by High Powered Election Committees and a High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee, both comprising former High Court judges. In light of this, the BCI argued that the consideration of challenges to the election process by High Courts was entirely unwarranted once the Supreme Court had already sanctioned the procedure.

Addressing allegations related to the nomination fee, the BCI clarified that it does not receive or retain any portion of the amount collected during State Bar Council elections. The full nomination fee, it stated, accrues exclusively to the respective State Bar Councils. The prescribed fee of ₹1.25 lakh forms an integral part of the election framework approved by the Supreme Court.

The BCI also highlighted the significant financial burden it has undertaken to comply with Supreme Court directives on election supervision. It stated that the Council incurs expenditure exceeding ₹20 crore for this purpose, covering costs such as travel, accommodation, boarding, and honorarium for former judges appointed to election-related committees. These expenses, according to the BCI, are met entirely through contributions from members of the legal profession, without any assistance from the government or external agencies.

Concluding the letter, the BCI urged the Chief Justice of India to consider issuing appropriate advisories or directions to ensure that election-related disputes remain confined to the Supreme Court-mandated mechanism. It stressed the need for judicial restraint in such matters to prevent unnecessary institutional friction and to preserve the constitutional balance between the judiciary and the legal profession.