SUPREME COURT SEEKS RESPONSE ON CHALLENGE TO BCI RULE BARRING BAR ASSOCIATION LEADERS FROM CONTESTING STATE BAR COUNCIL POLLS:

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice on a petition challenging the validity of Chapter III of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Election Rules, 2016, which bars office bearers of District and High Court Bar Associations from contesting elections to State Bar Councils. The bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order while observing that the issue raised in the petition merited judicial consideration.

The bench, however, declined to grant interim relief by way of a stay on the operation of the Rules. The Court noted that the petitioners had approached it only in 2025, nearly nine years after the rules were enacted, coinciding with the upcoming State Bar Council elections in Uttar Pradesh scheduled for January. Justice Kant remarked that the timing of the petition indicated that the challenge was motivated by the immediate electoral context, and hence, interim relief was not warranted at this stage.

The petition was filed by the Bulandshahr District Bar Association and its President, challenging what they termed as discriminatory provisions in the BCI Election Rules. According to the petitioners, while the rules prohibit office bearers of District and High Court Bar Associations from contesting State Bar Council elections, they make an exception for office bearers of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), who remain eligible to contest. The petitioners contended that this differential treatment is arbitrary and violates the constitutional guarantees of equality and freedom of association under Articles 14 and 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India.

Senior Advocate P.B. Suresh, appearing for the petitioners, argued that the rule created an unjustified hierarchy among advocates based on the forum in which they practice. He urged the Court to direct that, at the very least, the nomination of the petitioner-Bar Association’s office bearers be accepted for the forthcoming Uttar Pradesh Bar Council elections. However, the bench refused to issue such a direction, choosing instead to first seek responses from the Bar Council of India and other concerned authorities before passing any further orders.

The petition asserts that granting SCBA office bearers the right to contest while denying the same to leaders of District and High Court Bar Associations constitutes “clear arbitrariness” and unfairly privileges one group of advocates over another. It argues that such a distinction is unreasonable, as all advocates, regardless of where they practice, are governed by the same professional standards and belong to the same legal fraternity. The petitioners submitted that there was “no rational basis” to confer special privileges on advocates practicing before the Supreme Court while excluding others from similar opportunities.

It is further stated in the petition that the executive committee of the Bulandshahr District Bar Association convened a meeting on October 31, 2025, where members unanimously resolved that the restriction imposed by the BCI Rules violated the constitutional principles of equality and freedom of representation. The Association’s President, who is also one of the petitioners, expressed his intention to contest in the forthcoming Bar Council elections but was disqualified due to the impugned provision.

The petitioners have sought that Chapter III of the 2016 Rules be either struck down or read down to permit office bearers of District and High Court Bar Associations to contest State Bar Council elections, provided they are willing to demit office upon filing nominations. They contend that this would ensure parity among all classes of advocates and uphold democratic representation within the Bar. After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Bar Council of India and posted the matter for further hearing, emphasizing that the challenge raises an important question concerning equality and the internal democracy of the legal profession.