The Supreme Court has issued notice on a petition questioning 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 State Bar Council elections, while permitting the same for members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi passed the order, observing that the matter “requires consideration.” However, the Court declined to grant interim relief, noting that the challenge had been filed belatedly, just before the upcoming Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council elections.
The petition, filed by the Bulandshahr District Bar Association and its President, assails the 2016 Rules as discriminatory and unconstitutional, arguing that they confer an unjustified advantage upon office bearers of the SCBA while excluding their counterparts from District and High Court Bar Associations.
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate P.B. Suresh urged the Court to direct acceptance of the nominations of the petitioner association’s office bearers for the impending elections. The Bench, however, refused to grant such relief at this stage.
According to the petitioners, the impugned Rule violates Article 14 and Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution of India by imposing an unreasonable restriction on the right of advocates to participate in the electoral process. It was submitted that all Bar Association office bearers should be treated equally and allowed to contest State Bar Council elections, with an option to relinquish their posts upon election.
The plea further records that during a meeting held on October 31, 2025, the executive committee of the petitioner association unanimously resolved that the restriction was contrary to the constitutional principles of equality and free association. It was also noted that the President of the association, who wishes to contest the forthcoming elections, stands disqualified solely by virtue of holding office.
The petitioners have described the Rules as “arbitrary, irrational, and violative of basic constitutional norms,” contending that granting exclusive privilege to advocates practising before the Supreme Court amounts to an unreasonable classification.
Taking note of these submissions, the Apex Court issued notice to the Bar Council of India and directed it to file its response. The matter will be listed for further hearing in due course.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
