Recently, two practising advocates have approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) recent decision to fix a non-refundable nomination fee of Rs. 1.25 lakh for candidates contesting in the upcoming State Bar Council elections, terming it “excessive, arbitrary and contrary to the democratic ethos” of the legal profession.
The writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Advocates Manish Jain and Pradeep Kumar, assails the BCI Circular issued in September 2025, which revised the nomination fee structure for all State Bar Councils. The petitioners, enrolled with the Bar Councils of Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, have sought judicial intervention to set aside the impugned circular and to direct that elections be held in accordance with the Supreme Court’s earlier directions.
The petitioners contend that the imposition of such a steep fee is “a direct assault on the democratic process” and incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of equality and fair opportunity. It asserted, “Imposition of condition precedent to deposit exorbitant amount of Rs. 1,25,000/- in the name of nomination fee to be eligible to take part in the electoral process whereas poses threat to the fairness in the democratic process on the one hand; it abridges the rights of the citizens of equality and of fair opportunity.”
The petition further avers that the decision “not only deprives the voters of level playing field but also curtails the choices of the voters,” thereby amounting to “unfairness in the electoral process.”
The BCI’s impugned circular was issued following the Supreme Court’s order issued in September 2025, directing that all long-pending State Bar Council elections be completed by January 31, 2026. Pursuant to this direction, the BCI instructed State Bar Councils to constitute election committees and commence the electoral process, while simultaneously revising the nomination fee.
Challenging the rationale behind the fee hike, the petitioners submit that the purported justification, financial constraints arising after the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment reducing enrolment fees, cannot legitimize the imposition of such an onerous condition. They contend that most State Bar Councils are financially sound, referring in particular to publicly available data showing that the Bar Council of Delhi holds funds exceeding Rs. 99 crores.
While terming the measure as “an antithesis to democracy,” the petition warns that such a move would “restrict participation to only those with financial means, thereby promoting the use of money and muscle power” in professional elections. The advocates argue that this not only violates Article 14, Article 19, and Article 21 of the Constitution of India but also undermines the representative character of the legal fraternity.
Filed through Advocate-on-Record Varun Mishra, the petition calls upon the Supreme Court to quash the impugned circular and ensure that Bar Council elections are conducted in a manner consistent with the Court’s directions and the fundamental tenets of democratic fairness.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
