The Supreme Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to revisit a controversial rule that bars office-bearers of Bar Associations except those from the Supreme Court Bar Association, from contesting elections to State Bar Councils. A Bench led by Surya Kant disposed of a writ petition challenging Chapter III of the Bar Council of India Uniform Rules for Elections, 2016, holding that the provision warrants reconsideration and possible amendment within a week. The ruling could significantly reshape eligibility norms for upcoming State Bar Council elections across the country.
The petition was filed by office-bearers of the High Court Bar Association and District Bar Association at Jabalpur, who challenged the constitutional validity of the 2016 Rules in the context of elections to the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council. The impugned clause rendered any advocate serving as an office-bearer of a Bar Association ineligible to contest State Bar Council elections and mandated rejection of nomination papers at the threshold.
The petitioners argued that under the Advocates Act, 1961, the power to frame election rules for State Bar Councils lies with the respective State Councils, not the BCI. They further contended that the rule was arbitrary, violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, and created an unjustified exemption in favour of the Supreme Court Bar Association.
In its order, the Bench observed that it found no immediate justification for the classification drawn by the rule. “Prima facie we see no justification for creating the artificial distinction under the Rules,” the Court noted, directing the BCI to “reconsider the provision and make a suitable amendment within one week.” At the same time, the Chief Justice clarified that the BCI would be free to impose a condition preventing a person from simultaneously holding office in a Bar Association and a State Bar Council after being elected.
The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with the above directions.
Picture Source :
