The Bar Council of India formally approached the Chief Justice of India raising serious objections to certain remarks made by a judge of the Kerala High Court during the hearing of matters connected with elections to the State Bar Councils. The communication conveyed the Bar Council’s institutional concern regarding observations made from the bench about the nomination fee fixed for candidates contesting Bar Council elections. According to the Bar Council of India, the remarks were unwarranted, lacked factual basis, and had the potential to disturb the institutional balance between the judiciary and the statutory bodies entrusted with regulating the legal profession.
The issue arose from proceedings before the Kerala High Court in which a writ petition challenged the nomination fee prescribed for candidates seeking to contest elections to the State Bar Council. During the hearing, the judge questioned the justification for fixing the nomination fee at a high amount and made observations regarding the manner in which the funds collected might be utilized. These remarks included questions about expenditure patterns and suggestions that such financial arrangements could attract scrutiny. The Bar Council of India viewed these observations as inappropriate in the context of the legal framework governing Bar Council elections and expressed concern that such comments could undermine confidence in the electoral process.
In its communication to the Chief Justice of India, the Bar Council of India emphasized that Bar Council elections across the country are being conducted strictly in accordance with a framework approved and monitored by the Supreme Court. This framework includes the constitution of High Powered Election Committees and a High Powered Election Supervisory Committee, both comprising former judges, to ensure transparency, fairness, and adherence to the rule of law. The Bar Council stated that once the Supreme Court has approved an election mechanism, individual High Courts ought not to entertain challenges or make observations that could interfere with the implementation of that mechanism.
The Bar Council clarified that it does not receive or retain any portion of the nomination fee collected during State Bar Council elections. It stated that the entire nomination fee is retained by the respective State Bar Councils and is utilized for election-related purposes. The communication further explained that the Bar Council of India is bearing substantial expenditure in implementing the election framework mandated by the Supreme Court, including costs associated with travel, accommodation, and honorarium for members of the election committees and the supervisory body. These expenses, according to the Bar Council, are met through contributions from within the legal profession and not through public funds.
The Bar Council of India expressed apprehension that generalized judicial remarks on the financial aspects of Bar Council elections could create confusion and institutional friction. It stressed that election-related grievances should be addressed only through the mechanisms approved by the Supreme Court and not through parallel proceedings in High Courts. The communication urged the Chief Justice of India to consider issuing appropriate directions or advisories to ensure that courts refrain from entertaining election-related challenges that fall within the exclusive supervisory domain established by the Supreme Court.
The letter also conveyed that continued judicial criticism of Bar Council election processes could compel representative bodies of advocates to consider lawful collective measures to protect institutional autonomy. While reiterating its respect for the judiciary, the Bar Council underscored the need for restraint in judicial commentary on matters that are already subject to Supreme Court oversight. It warned that repeated adverse observations could erode mutual respect between the Bar and the Bench and disrupt the cooperative relationship essential for the administration of justice.
The controversy surrounding the nomination fee forms the broader backdrop to the dispute. The fee had been significantly increased from earlier levels, prompting concerns among sections of the legal fraternity about accessibility and fairness in the electoral process. These concerns led to the filing of writ petitions before the Kerala High Court questioning the legality and proportionality of the fee. During the course of hearing such petitions, the judge’s remarks became the subject of the Bar Council of India’s objection.
In its communication, the Bar Council did not deny the right of advocates to raise grievances but emphasized that the proper forum for addressing election-related disputes had already been clearly identified by the Supreme Court. It asserted that deviation from this structure could lead to inconsistent decisions and uncertainty in the conduct of elections. The Bar Council maintained that institutional discipline and adherence to established procedures were essential to preserve the integrity of the regulatory system governing the legal profession.
The Bar Council’s decision to escalate the matter to the Chief Justice of India reflects the seriousness with which it viewed the issue. By placing its concerns before the highest judicial authority, the Bar Council sought guidance and intervention to prevent further judicial observations that, in its view, exceeded appropriate limits. The communication underscored the importance of maintaining a clear demarcation between judicial review and the autonomous functioning of statutory bodies within the framework approved by the Supreme Court.
Overall, the episode highlights ongoing tensions surrounding the conduct of Bar Council elections, particularly in relation to nomination fees and judicial scrutiny. It also brings into focus the broader institutional relationship between the judiciary and bodies regulating the legal profession. The Bar Council of India’s communication underscores its position that while judicial oversight is vital, it must operate within the contours defined by the Supreme Court to ensure stability, consistency, and mutual respect between the Bar and the Bench.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.