The Supreme Court heard a batch of matters concerning the conduct and structure of Bar Council elections, with a CJI-led Bench indicating that, at the present stage, it may be too late to introduce structural changes for elections that have already been notified.

During the hearing, the Bench observed that once the election process has been formally notified, judicial interference at a “distance point” is ordinarily impermissible. The Court noted that it had no reservation in principle to the demand for broader and more effective representation, including for women and marginalised sections, but emphasised that such changes cannot be introduced mid-stream for the current elections.

Senior counsel Meenakshi Verma appearing for various State Bar Councils, including Maharashtra, submitted that the statutory framework under the Advocates Act, 1961 particularly provisions introduced through the 1974 amendment has become outdated. It was pointed out that while the law caps the strength of State Bar Councils at 25 elected members for councils with over 10,000 advocates, present-day enrolments have increased exponentially. Maharashtra alone, counsel submitted, now has approximately 2.7 lakh advocates, rendering the existing numerical cap disproportionate and ineffective.

The Counsel suggested that, at least for the present election, the number of elected members be increased from 25 to 35, with 20% reservation for women and 10% by way of co-option, to ensure meaningful representation. It was further urged that the Court may keep the larger issue pending and eventually evolve a uniform or proportionate yardstick linking representation to the number of enrolled advocates across State Bar Councils.

The Bench, however, cautioned against issuing any blanket directions under Article 142 of the Constitution in the absence of legislative backing. It reiterated that the Advocates Act does not presently envisage reservation and that any long-term restructuring must ideally emanate from Parliament. At the same time, the Court acknowledged the pressing need for reform, noting that nearly 50 years have passed since the last major amendment.

Taking a proactive but restrained approach, the Court indicated that it would call upon the Union of India to examine the issue and explore possible solutions. The Bench also showed openness to issuing observations or recommendations, short of binding directions, to facilitate reform without disrupting ongoing elections.

Separately, a limited prayer was pressed seeking directions for State Bar Councils to upload comprehensive enrolment data of advocates such as names, contact details, and enrolment particulars on their official websites to ensure transparency and smooth conduct of elections. The Court indicated that this request could be considered, as it would aid both voters and candidates.

The matters are expected to be taken up again after responses from the Union of India, with the Court making it clear that while systemic reform is necessary, ongoing Bar Council elections will proceed under the existing legal framework.

Appearances:

Sr Advocates Manan Kumar Mishra, Meenakshi Verma, Aishwarya Bhati;

Advocates Jasbir Malik; Anshuman Singh.