The Supreme Court declined to directly entertain fresh interlocutory applications challenging certain Bar Council of India (BCI) rules, instead directing applicants to approach the High-Powered Supervisory Committee headed by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.

Multiple applicants had questioned the validity of newly framed Bar Council rules, particularly concerning the process of co-option in Bar Councils and election-related matters. It was argued that the rules were ultra vires and their legality could only be tested by the Supreme Court.

The Bench of Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, clarified that all election-related grievances and rule-related concerns should first be examined by the Supervisory Committee constituted earlier by the Court. The Court observed: “Why not everything be monitored by Justice Dhulia’s Committee?”

Clarifying the mechanism, the Bench stated that while the Committee may examine objections to the rules and their implementation, the final determination of legality would remain with the Supreme Court:

“If Justice Dhulia finds that there is something wrong with the rule, he will recommend it.”

The Court further noted that challenges arising out of co-option rules were intertwined with ongoing Bar Council elections and therefore must be routed through the supervisory framework already put in place.

Regarding the Kerala application seeking adjustments to the election schedule due to court vacations and model code of conduct concerns, the Court directed that representations be made before the Supervisory Committee, which would examine them and submit its opinion.

The Bench also clarified that interim orders passed in the matter do not authorise the Committee to exercise powers beyond election supervision, and any issues concerning the legality of rules would ultimately be considered by the Court upon receiving the Committee’s report.