Bar Council Elections: Supreme Court Reduces Nomination Fee for Specially Abled Advocates, Directs BCI to Revise Rules to Secure Their Representation
From the Editor's Desk
With State Bar Council election schedules already in motion, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene midstream by ordering seat reservation for specially abled advocates in Bar Council elections. Instead, the Court asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) to begin the process of revising the relevant rules so that future elections provide adequate representation to specially abled lawyers.
A key immediate relief granted by the Bench was on the cost of contesting: the nomination fee for specially abled candidates was slashed from Rs. 1.25 lakh to Rs. 15,000 for Bar Council polls.
The hearing was before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The Bench indicated that the larger purpose of the proceedings was to ensure that specially abled advocates have real participation—and not merely token presence—in the bodies that shape policy and administration within the BCI framework.
Representing the BCI, Senior Advocate and BCI Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra argued that the current statutory arrangement does not allow reservation in the principal Bar Council because Parliament has not provided for such a mechanism. He also pointed to the practical difficulty of making structural alterations once elections across multiple State Bar Councils have already begun. As an interim measure for the ongoing year, Mishra told the Court that the BCI would include specially abled advocates by co-opting them into its committees, enabling their involvement in the Council’s work.
The Court took note of this assurance but cautioned that co-option cannot be treated as a lasting solution. The Bench observed that long-term certainty and transparency would require formal amendments so that representation for specially abled advocates is built into the election framework rather than depending on ad hoc arrangements.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising drew attention to the nomination fee itself, contending that the amount is so high that it effectively shuts out many specially abled advocates from contesting elections. The Chief Justice indicated that the fee, at least for this category, should be reduced to a token level.
After deliberations, Mishra informed the Court that the BCI would bring the specially abled category nomination fee down to Rs. 15,000. The Court recorded that this reduced fee would be available only to specially abled advocates, and that other candidates could not demand the same treatment by claiming parity.
In its order, the Court framed the dispute around two issues: representation for specially abled advocates in Bar Council bodies and the financial hurdle created by the nomination fee. While choosing not to disrupt elections already underway, the Bench directed the BCI to start amending its provisions to ensure that future elections provide adequate representation to categories where reservation is contemplated under the constitutional framework or welfare legislation.
The Court also noted that State Bar Councils may approach the Union Government to consider a mechanism for revising enrolment fees. It further observed that once an election process has commenced, High Courts should not entertain challenges to that election process.
Case Title: PANKAJ SINHA v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND ORS and S. M. VETRIVEL vs. THE SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA |
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 1261/2025, SLP(C) No. 036061 - / 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
