The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to reconsider a rule that disqualifies office bearers of Bar Associations from contesting elections to State Bar Councils.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India 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.
What the Impugned Rule Provides
The challenged provision states that an advocate who serves as an office-bearer of any Bar Association—except the Supreme Court Bar Association—cannot contest elections to a State Bar Council.
In addition, the rule directs the Returning Officer to reject the nomination papers of any person who was or is an office-bearer of a Bar Association on the date of notification of the State Bar Council election.
As a result, office bearers of District Court and High Court Bar Associations become ineligible to contest.
Supreme Court’s Prima Facie View
The Supreme Court observed that the rule creates an artificial distinction between different Bar Associations.
“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.
Accordingly, the Bench directed the Bar Council of India to reconsider the provision and introduce a suitable amendment within one week.
However, Chief Justice Surya Kant clarified that the BCI may impose a condition requiring a person, after being elected, to relinquish one of the two posts. Therefore, an individual cannot simultaneously continue as an office-bearer of a Bar Association and as a member of a State Bar Council.
Petitioners’ Challenge
The writ petition was filed by:
- Dhanya Kumar Jain, President of the High Court Bar Association, Jabalpur
- Paritosh Trivedi, Secretary of the same association
- Manish Kumar Mishra, President of the Jabalpur District Bar Association
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Chapter III of the 2016 Rules. They argued that the provision makes office-bearers of Bar Associations ineligible to contest elections to the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council.
Statutory Grounds Raised
The petition relied on the scheme of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The petitioners submitted that Section 6(1)(g) of the Act vests the power to provide for the election of members of a State Bar Council with the respective State Bar Councils. In exercise of this power, the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh framed the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Election Rules, 1968.
They contended that the Bar Council of India lacked jurisdiction to frame rules governing the election process of State Bar Councils.
According to them, Section 49(1)(ab) of the Advocates Act empowers the BCI to prescribe qualifications and disqualifications for membership of a Bar Council. However, it does not authorise the BCI to regulate the electoral process or mandate rejection of nomination papers at the threshold.
Constitutional Challenge
The petitioners further argued that the rule violates Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.
They submitted that the rule arbitrarily singles out certain office-bearers while exempting the Supreme Court Bar Association. According to them, this exemption lacks a rational basis.
After examining the submissions, the Supreme Court reiterated that it saw no prima facie justification for the distinction created under the Rules. It therefore directed the Bar Council of India to reconsider the provision and amend it within one week.
Case Title: Dhanya Kumar Jain v. Bar Council of India.
