Dark Mode
Image
Logo

Supreme Court Declines OCI Cardholder’s Plea to Contest State Bar Council Elections, Cites Citizenship Requirement Under Advocates Act

Supreme Court Declines OCI Cardholder’s Plea to Contest State Bar Council Elections, Cites Citizenship Requirement Under Advocates Act

Evan V


The Supreme Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by an Overseas Citizen of India ("OCI") cardholder seeking permission to contest elections to a State Bar Council.

 

A Division Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant  and Justice Joymalya Bagchi  rejected the petitioner’s contention that, as an "OCI" cardholder, he should be treated on par with a Non-Resident Indian ("NRI") and therefore be held eligible to contest Bar Council elections.

 

The writ petition was filed by Chelabhai Karsanbhai Patel, whose nomination for the Gujarat State Bar Council elections was not accepted on the grounds that he is not an Indian citizen.

 

Also Read: Cooperation With Investigation Does Not Mean Self-Incrimination: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Despite Accused's Refusal To Surrender Mobile Phone

 

The petitioner’s nomination had earlier been rejected by the High Powered Election Supervisory Committee as well as the High Powered Election Committee. Aggrieved thereby, he approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

 

The petitioner argued that the 2025 Bar Council of India Rules, which bar foreign nationals from practising law, should not apply to a person of Indian origin with roots in India. It was also contended that the Rules do not specifically refer to an "OCI" cardholder.

 

He further relied upon a notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs to submit that "OCI" cardholders are to be treated at par with "NRI"s.

 

The Bench, however, observed that under the Citizenship Act, the petitioner remains a foreign citizen, notwithstanding his status as a person of Indian origin.

 

Also Read: Insurer Cannot Seek Separate Proof Of Income Source Once Deceased’s Income Is Proved By ITR In Motor Accident Claim: J&K High Court

 

The Court also indicated that the MHA notification relied upon by the petitioner was issued for a limited and specific purpose, and could not be applied across all statutory contexts as a matter of course.

 

Justice Bagchi, in particular, referred to Section 24 of the Advocates Act, which stipulates that only an Indian citizen is eligible to be a member of a Bar Council. The Bench indicated that, unless the statutory provision is amended, relief could not be granted on the basis of an executive notification.

 

Case Title: Chelabhai Karsanbhai Patel v. High Powered Election Supervisory Committee and Others 

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 241/2026

Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi 

Comment / Reply From

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Subscribe to our mailing list to get the new updates!