Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice K V Viswanathan accepted the final report of the Committee for Electoral Reforms chaired by Justice L. Nageswara Rao (Retd.), which recommended structural changes to the eligibility norms, tenure, disqualification, and conduct regulations concerning elections to the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association. The Court directed that the reforms proposed by the Committee shall be treated as part of the governing framework for SCBA elections, including revisions to categories of voting eligibility, codified disqualifications for misconduct, and changes to the tenure of office bearers. The Court further recorded that the incorporation of judicial directions into the SCBA Rules shall be undertaken without delay and compliance with these norms shall be ensured under the supervision of the Election Committee.

The proceedings arose out of directions issued by the Supreme Court in earlier judgments rendered in a long-standing litigation concerning the governance and electoral processes of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). These decisions, reported as SCBA v. B.D. Kaushik (2011) 13 SCC 774, (2012) 6 SCC 152, and (2012) 8 SCC 589, laid down the foundational framework for electoral eligibility and membership categories within the SCBA. To address further concerns and operational inconsistencies in the application of those directions, a Miscellaneous Application bearing Diary No. 13992 of 2023 was filed seeking additional clarification and reformation in the SCBA bye-laws.

Also Read: Supreme Court : Reasonable Accommodation Upheld As Fundamental Right | AIIMS Directed To Admit Candiate With Disability Without NEET Reappearance

In response to this application, the Supreme Court, by order dated 24 February 2025, constituted a Committee chaired by Justice L. Nageswara Rao (Retd.) to suggest electoral reforms, including revised eligibility conditions, structural governance changes, and procedural safeguards. The Committee was also tasked with recommending amendments to the SCBA’s Rules and Regulations to align them with judicial directions and evolving institutional needs.

Following its constitution, the Committee invited suggestions from stakeholders through public notices circulated on 12 March 2025 and 24 March 2025. These were disseminated via email, SMS, and social media. A total of approximately 170 submissions were received from Senior Advocates, Advocates-on-Record (AORs), non-resident members, and others, including written representations from notable legal professionals such as Mr. Vikas Singh, Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, and Mr. Kapil Sibal. The Committee also relied on prior documents submitted in pending proceedings and held interactions with several advocates to incorporate a broad range of views.

The Committee convened meetings on 11 March, 23 March, 30 March, 5 April, and 14 April 2025 to deliberate on the suggestions received. A draft report was circulated for internal review on 1 April 2025 before being finalized. The Committee recorded that while various proposals were received concerning the functioning of the SCBA library, member amenities, and administration, its mandate was strictly limited to electoral reforms.

The Committee was asked to examine several core areas: eligibility for voting and contesting elections, the tenure and strength of the Executive Committee, introduction of disqualifications for misconduct, and other related electoral procedures. In terms of eligibility to vote, the Committee scrutinized the existing categories that had evolved through judicial directions in B.D. Kaushik and its subsequent implementations. These included criteria such as allotment of chambers, proximity card usage, fifty appearances in two years, or twenty filings per year by AORs.

The Committee noted a disparity in how these categories were treated and recommended recasting them for consistency and transparency. It suggested retaining only those categories that objectively reflected regular practice before the Court: (i) fifty appearances per year in the past two years, (ii) twenty filings per year by AORs, (iii) twenty mediation cases in two years conducted as lead mediator, and (iv) a new category for “veteran members” with 25+ years of membership. Other categories—such as chamber allotment, waitlist status, residence in NCR, government counsel exception, and proximity card usage—were proposed to be removed.

For eligibility to contest elections, the existing SCBA Rule 18(I-A) required five years’ standing at the bar for Office Bearer posts and three years for Executive Member posts. The Committee proposed a uniform threshold of five years of SCBA membership for all posts and an additional condition of ten lead appearances in reported judgments in the past ten years for the post of President. It recorded that merely fulfilling formal criteria like standing or proximity card entry did not reflect the functional leadership experience necessary for representing the bar.

The Committee also reviewed the current tenure of the Executive Committee as per Rule 17, which stood at one year. While some representations favoured retention to prevent concentration of power, others submitted that a short tenure impeded long-term planning and led to instability. After weighing the arguments, the Committee recommended increasing the term to two years with a cooling-off period after one term, citing logistical and performance-related reasons.

On the issue of disqualifications, the Committee pointed out the absence of express provisions in the SCBA Rules for penalizing misconduct during elections. Although Rule 35 dealt with unprofessional conduct and Rule 17A granted the Election Committee broad powers, no formal codified disqualifications existed for inducements or campaign violations. The Committee proposed the inclusion of a Model Code of Conduct with disqualifications for providing inducements and recommended disbarment from the present and subsequent elections in such cases. It also suggested a ceiling on campaign expenditure and mandatory disclosure of expenses by candidates.

In view of concerns about undue proximity of elected representatives to Judges, the Committee advised the inclusion of guidance on ethical conduct during tenure and recommended that elected members submit a self-appraisal report after the completion of their term. To reduce persistent and unsolicited communication during elections, the Committee also proposed the creation of a common manifesto platform hosted on the SCBA website, allowing members to opt out of campaign messages.

Additionally, the Committee recommended that if elections are to be held biennially, they should ideally be conducted on the same day as those of the Delhi High Court and District Bar Associations to facilitate enforcement of the “One Bar One Vote” principle.

The report also noted that the SCBA Rules had not yet incorporated judicial directions laid down over a decade ago. The Committee stated that continued reliance on unamended Rules disconnected from binding judicial mandates created uncertainty. It recommended that either the General Body pass appropriate resolutions under Rule 39 or, failing that, the necessary amendments be incorporated via express judicial directions.

In closing, the Committee made further suggestions beyond electoral reforms. It recommended that the SCBA enhance public accessibility by publishing FAQs and advisories related to Supreme Court practice. It also proposed institutionalising continuing legal education through seminars and lectures, and encouraging participation in legislative consultations to contribute to legal development.

The Supreme Court took note of the comprehensive report submitted by the Committee chaired by Justice L. Nageswara Rao (Retd.) and endorsed its findings and recommendations. The Court recorded that the Committee’s recommendations were made after receiving “wide-ranging suggestions from members of the bar including Senior Advocates, AORs, non-resident and resident members, and other stakeholders.” It acknowledged that deliberations were conducted through multiple meetings and the final report was prepared after careful consideration.

On the issue of voter eligibility, the Court accepted the Committee’s recommendation that “regular practice should be ascertained with reference to a uniform, consistently applicable transparent standard, as far as possible.” It noted that prior categories, such as chamber allotment or proximity card use, had diluted the core requirement of active and substantive legal practice before the Supreme Court.

Referring to the rationale for revising voting eligibility, the Court observed that “filing cases or appearances in Court are uniform and transparent standards to ascertain regular practice” and that other categories such as chamber allotment or residence in the National Capital Region did not reflect continued engagement with the Court’s proceedings. It was recorded that “exceptions to the basic rule of eligibility… should not eat away the rule.”

On the issue of proximity card use as a basis for eligibility, the Court referred to the Committee’s analysis, which stated that “the use of the proximity card for 60 days does not indicate the actual involvement of an Advocate in the Court’s proceedings… If mere entry to the Court 60 times a year answers the description of ‘regular practitioner’, there is practically no need for any higher thresholds.”

Regarding the recommendation for veteran members, the Court accepted the rationale that “there are several veteran lawyers, including leading senior advocates, who have spent a significant portion of their lives working in the Supreme Court,” and held that such members, having completed 25 years of membership, may be included in a new category of voting eligibility as a recognition of their longstanding affiliation.

On the qualification for contesting elections, the Court endorsed the proposal to require a “minimum uniform threshold of five years membership” to be eligible to stand for any post. For the post of President, the Court approved the requirement of “a minimum of 10 lead appearances in judgments in the last 10 years” as a condition for candidacy.

The Court accepted the reasoning that eligibility to contest should reflect substantive legal engagement, and not be based solely on years of membership or standing at the bar. The Court noted that “to stand for any post, a minimum threshold of experience is essential,” and that such a standard would ensure that candidates are actively involved in the Court’s proceedings and are familiar with the institution’s functioning.

On the question of tenure, the Court examined both sides of the argument. While annual elections were perceived as a safeguard against concentration of power, the Committee noted that “out of 12 calendar months, for about 2 ½ months, there are summer, winter vacations, Holi, Diwali and Dusshera breaks,” and that effective tenure is reduced to around 8–9 months. The Court recorded that this truncated term “is too short a period to ensure meaningful improvements” and accepted the Committee’s recommendation to increase the Executive Committee’s term to two years, subject to a cooling-off period after one term.

On the issue of disqualifications for electoral misconduct, the Court noted that the existing SCBA Rules did not contain any provision disqualifying candidates found to have induced voters or exceeded permissible campaign expenditure. The Court observed that “a candidate found to have provided inducements must not only be disqualified from contesting the present election but the next election,” and accepted the proposal to empower the Election Committee to determine such violations under Rule 17A. The Court further recorded that “mobile phones should not be permitted in the polling booth” to prevent practices such as vote-sharing via photographs.

The Court also agreed with the Committee’s recommendation to place a ceiling on campaign expenditure and require candidates to “furnish a statement of expenditure incurred,” with oversight by the Election Committee. The need for structured transparency and fairness in the conduct of elections was recorded as essential to ensuring the SCBA’s credibility and democratic functioning.

Regarding representation, the Court referred to its earlier direction dated 2 May 2024, which had already mandated “reservation for women in 1/3rd seats of the Executive Committee and at least one post of Office Bearer for women candidates exclusively by turn and on rotation basis.” In light of this, the Court stated that “no further recommendation for communal or other reservation was warranted at present” and noted the Committee’s reservation against introducing additional quotas without empirical assessment.

On the issue of the Model Code of Conduct, the Court endorsed the recommendation that the Code should “contain a categorical disqualification for providing inducement in any form, cash or kind, in lieu of votes,” and that the Election Committee must be empowered to determine misconduct and impose sanctions accordingly. The Court also recorded that “determination of electoral misconduct should be reserved to the Election Committee.”

Addressing concerns about misuse of access by elected representatives, the Court observed that “professional aggrandizement must not be the invisible incentive for election to the Executive Committee,” and accepted the recommendation for a Code of Conduct during tenure to guide interactions between elected members and the judiciary. The Court found merit in the suggestion that members of the Executive Committee submit “a self-appraisal report of their achievements and failures vis-à-vis respective manifestos” at the end of their term.

On the procedural front, the Court acknowledged the recommendation to establish “a common platform (website)” for uploading manifestos, and an opt-out facility for bar members from repeated campaign communications. It also endorsed the proposal for “early constitution of the Election Committee” to ensure effective implementation of the Model Code and supervision of the election process.

Lastly, the Court took note of the Committee’s broader suggestions for institutional development, including the need to “provide legal advisories, FAQs, guidance on the practice and procedure of the Court on its website for public use,” and promote “continuing education for Members” through seminars, lectures, and legislative engagement.

The Supreme Court directed that the report submitted by the Committee for Electoral Reforms, chaired by Justice L. Nageswara Rao (Retd.), be treated as binding and integral to the regulatory framework governing elections to the Executive Committee of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

The Court directed that the SCBA Rules and Regulations be amended to incorporate all judicial directions previously issued and those recommended in the present report. It stated that “judicial directions issued by the Court (that touch on matters of eligibility, elections etc.) must be incorporated in the SCBA’s Rules.” In the event of any impediment in the formal amendatory process by the General Body, the Court directed that such incorporation shall be effectuated through an express judicial directive.

In respect of eligibility to vote, the Court accepted the revised categories proposed by the Committee and directed that “the categories for eligibility of the right to vote may be recast” to include only the following: (i) fifty appearances per year in the preceding two years; (ii) Advocates-on-Record with an average of twenty filings per year over two years; (iii) non-AOR members on the panel of mediators in the Supreme Court Mediation Centre for two years who have conducted twenty mediation cases as lead mediator; and (iv) veteran members holding membership for twenty-five years.

In light of the decision in SCBA v. State of UP, 2025 SCC Online 587, the Court further directed that “the requirement for 50 appearances may be met with reference to Court orders and/or certificate(s) from Senior Advocates / AORs who have received the assistance of such counsel in at least 50 court hearings the preceding two years.” Such certifications must include case details, hearing dates, and the role of the assisting counsel.

Regarding eligibility to contest elections, the Court accepted the recommendation for a minimum of five years membership in the SCBA for all posts, and an additional requirement for the President’s post of “10 lead appearances in judgments in the last 10 years.” The Court directed that these revised criteria shall be applied prospectively in all upcoming elections.

The Court approved the proposal to increase the tenure of the Executive Committee from one year to two years and directed that a “cooling-off period shall be applied after one term.” It further recorded that this extension shall facilitate stability in representation and long-term policy execution.

The Court directed that disqualification provisions be included in the Model Code of Conduct to be issued by the Election Committee. It ordered that “a candidate found to have provided inducements must not only be disqualified from contesting the present election but the next election,” and that mobile phones shall not be permitted inside polling booths. It also directed that the Election Committee shall have the authority under Rule 17A to adjudicate such complaints and enforce sanctions.

On campaign finance, the Court directed the inclusion of “a ceiling on expenditure in campaigning for votes” and ordered that each candidate submit a statement of expenses. The Election Committee was directed to verify these disclosures and determine whether any disqualification is warranted for exceeding the prescribed limits.

Also Read: Registrar Has Legal Power To Access Society Records | Kerala High Court Upholds RTI Right Of Co-Op Member Seeking Transparency

With regard to additional proposals, the Court accepted the recommendation that “the election of the SCBA may be held on the same day as the elections to the Delhi High Court Bar Association and District Court Bar Associations,” in furtherance of the ‘One Bar One Vote’ principle. It also directed the SCBA to host “a common platform (website)… with the manifesto of all candidates, with the facility to opt out of all polling communications.”

Finally, the Court directed that the Election Committee be constituted sufficiently in advance of the election schedule to ensure full compliance with these directives. It also approved the recommendation that elected members of the Executive Committee shall submit “a self-appraisal report of their achievements and failures vis-à-vis respective manifestos, on the conclusion of their term.”

Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik

Case Number: M.A. Diary No. 13992 of 2023

Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

[Read/Download order]