New Delhi [India], January 26 : The Bar Council of India (BCI) has approached Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice of India, raising serious institutional concerns over oral remarks made by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court while entertaining a petition challenging the nomination fee prescribed for State Bar Council elections.
In a formal communication issued on January 26, the apex body of advocates stated that the High Court's intervention was in clear disregard of binding directions of the Supreme Court, which had expressly restrained all High Courts and subordinate courts from entertaining election-related petitions concerning Bar Council elections.
The BCI asserted that the impugned oral observations were "baseless and reckless" and assumed grave institutional significance, particularly as the elections in question are being conducted under the direct supervision of the Supreme Court itself.
According to the Council, such comments risk creating a public perception that the Bar's long-standing restraint is being mistaken for weakness, thereby disturbing the constitutional equilibrium between the Bar and the Bench.
Emphasising its institutional conduct, the BCI noted that it has consistently acted with responsibility and restraint, even when aware of excesses or lapses within certain quarters of the judiciary, choosing silence only to preserve the dignity, credibility, and majesty of the judicial institution.
However, the Council cautioned that such silence should not be interpreted as acquiescence or as a licence to launch unwarranted attacks on elected representative bodies of advocates.
Addressing the issue of election finances, the BCI clarified that the entire nomination fee collected during State Bar Council elections vests exclusively with the respective State Bar Councils, and that the Bar Council of India neither receives nor retains any portion of such fees.
It further pointed out that the nomination fee of ₹1.25 lakh is part of an election framework that was placed before and approved by the Supreme Court, rendering any parallel judicial scrutiny unwarranted.
The Council also highlighted the substantial financial burden imposed upon it due to Supreme Court-mandated election mechanisms.
It disclosed that it would be required to incur expenditure exceeding Rs 20 crore towards travel, boarding, lodging, and honorarium for Chairpersons and Members of High-Powered Election Committees and the High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee, all of whom are former judges of various High Courts. These expenses, the BCI noted, are borne entirely by the legal fraternity without any governmental or external financial assistance.
In view of these circumstances, the BCI requested the Chief Justice of India to consider issuing appropriate advisories or directions to ensure that election-related disputes remain confined to the exclusive mechanism constituted by the Supreme Court, and that judicial restraint is exercised to avoid avoidable institutional conflict and counter-productive consequences.
While reiterating its highest respect for the judiciary and its continued commitment to protecting the institution, the Bar Council of India warned that persistent reckless attacks on elected bodies of advocates would leave it with no option but to resort to lawful collective protest and pursue appropriate constitutional and legal remedies, including seeking administrative action where warranted.
The communication was issued with the approval of the General Council of the Bar Council of India and signed by Manan Kumar Mishra, Senior Advocate and Chairman of the BCI.