The Supreme Court dismissed as withdrawn a writ petition filed by an advocate challenging the constitutional validity of amended Rule 4, Chapter I of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Rules, which restricts eligibility to contest Bar Council elections.
The petition, instituted under Article 32 of the Constitution, assailed the October 29, 2025 amendment to the BCI Rules that renders an advocate ineligible to contest Bar Council elections if disciplinary proceedings or criminal cases of a serious nature are pending as of a date not later than nine months prior to the election notification. The amended rule also prescribes a three-day limitation for approaching the Central Election Tribunal and provides that the tribunal’s decision shall be final and binding on the Returning Officer.
The petitioner, a practising advocate from Telangana, contended that the amendment violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by disqualifying candidates solely on the basis of pendency of proceedings, thereby eroding the presumption of innocence and imposing a civil disability without conviction or final adjudication. It was further argued that the amendment amounted to excessive and ultra vires delegated legislation beyond the scope of the Advocates Act, 1961, and that the rigid limitation period coupled with a “finality” clause impermissibly curtailed access to effective judicial remedies.
The challenge arose in the context of elections to the Bar Council of Telangana, which were being conducted pursuant to earlier directions of the Supreme Court for time-bound Bar Council elections. The petitioner’s nomination had been rejected by the Returning Officer on January 3, 2026, applying the amended Rule 4, and his appeal before the High Powered Election Committee (Phase I) was also rejected.
When the matter came up before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, senior counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition after arguing the matter for some time. The Court permitted the withdrawal and accordingly dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, without examining the merits of the challenge.
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Nayyar, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Adv.; Mr. Akshay Joshi, Adv.; Mr. Yannam Narapa Reddy, AOR; Mr. K. Sai Teja, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Guru Krishan Kumar, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR; Ms. Anjul Dwivedi, Adv.; Mr. Vishesh Goel, Adv.; Mr. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv.; Mr. Siddharth Sinha, AOR
