Evan V

The Supreme Court of India on Thursday directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to reconsider a provision in its 2016 “Uniform Rules (and Mandatory Guidelines) for the Elections of Bar Councils” which disqualifies office-bearers of Bar Associations—other than the Supreme Court Bar Association—from contesting elections to State Bar Councils.

A Three Judge Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi disposed of a writ petition challenging Chapter III of the 2016 Rules, while directing the BCI to carry out reconsideration and effect an appropriate amendment within a stipulated time.

Also Read: DPDP–RTI Amendments: Supreme Court Issues Notice, Refers Challenges to Larger Bench; Declines Interim Stay

The challenged provision states that an advocate who is an office-bearer of any Bar Association (save the Supreme Court Bar Association) is ineligible to contest State Bar Council elections. It further mandates that the Returning Officer shall reject the nomination papers of such candidates if they were or are office-bearers on the date of notification of the State Bar Council election.

Recording its prima facie disapproval of the classification created by the rule, the Court observed:“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 Chief Justice, however, clarified that while the disqualification at the threshold was under reconsideration, the BCI could still prescribe an incompatibility condition post-election—namely, that a person elected to a State Bar Council may not continue simultaneously as an office-bearer of a Bar Association.

The petition was filed by Dhanya Kumar Jain (President, High Court Bar Association, Jabalpur), Paritosh Trivedi (Secretary, the same association) and Manish Kumar Mishra (President, Jabalpur District Bar Association). They challenged Chapter III of the 2016 Rules insofar as it rendered Bar Association office-bearers ineligible to contest elections to the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council.

The petitioners contended that the rule was ultra vires the scheme of the Advocates Act, 1961. It was argued that under Section 6(1)(g), the power to provide for elections to a State Bar Council vests with the State Bar Council itself, and that the Madhya Pradesh State Bar Council had framed its own election rules in 1968 in exercise of that authority.

Also Read: Kerala High Court Orders Director Of Health Services To Conduct Comprehensive Safety Audit Across All Three State Mental Health Centres

While acknowledging that the BCI may prescribe qualifications and disqualifications for membership of a Bar Council under Section 49(1)(ab), the petitioners argued that this did not extend to laying down election-process rules for State Bar Councils or mandating rejection of nomination papers as a threshold bar.

The challenge also invoked Articles 14 and 19, alleging that the provision arbitrarily excludes office-bearers of District Court and High Court Bar Associations, while creating an exception for the Supreme Court Bar Association without a rational basis.

In view of its prima facie finding that there was “no justification” for the distinction created by the rule, the Court directed the BCI to reconsider the provision and carry out suitable amendments within one week, and disposed of the writ petition accordingly.

Case Title: Dhanya Kumar Jain v. Bar Council of India 

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 226/2026