Supreme Court Seeks Centre, BCI's Response On Plea Of Elected Members Of U'khand Bar Body

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana took note of the submissions of Senior Advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, appearing for the elected members of the Uttarakhand state Bar Council, and issued notices to the Union Ministry of Law and and Justice and the BCI.

The petition, filed by Kuldeep Kumar and nine other elected members through lawyer Druv Joshi, sought quashing of the BCI's resolution of July 19 and the consequential circular of July 21.

It said that the measures are ultra vires Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and violate Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

According to the petition, elections to the Uttarakhand State Bar Council were held under the supervision of a high-powered election committee constituted pursuant to Supreme Court directions.

It said that the election results were declared on February 28 and officially notified in the Uttarakhand Gazette on March 13, giving the elected members a statutory right to assume office.

It said that Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act prescribes a maximum of 25 elected members for a state bar council where the electorate exceeds 10,000 advocates.

The plea said the BCI's subsequent resolution, which provides for a maximum composition of 32 members in such states to facilitate women's representation, effectively enlarges the statutory composition without any amendment by Parliament or specific authorisation from the Apex Court.

It said the BCI circular directing revision and republication of already gazetted election results amounts to reopening a concluded electoral process.

The plea said the finality of elections and the democratic mandate of nearly 11,000 advocates who participated in the Uttarakhand Bar Council polls has been undermined.

Referring to the Apex Court's orders, the plea said that the bench had directed implementation of 30 per cent women's representation within the existing statutory framework, with 20 per cent representation through elections and 10 per cent through co-option.

It said any proposal regarding co-option was required to be placed before this court.

The plea said that the BCI has replaced this mechanism by creating additional elected seats without judicial approval.

The plea also relied on an order of July 23, passed by the High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Sudhanshu Dhulia, which, according to the petition, held that the BCI resolution was contrary to the Advocates Act and inconsistent with the Apex Court's earlier directions.

"Issue a Writ of Certiorari ... quashing the Communication/Circular bearing No... dated 21.07.2026 issued by Respondent No. 2, the Bar Council of India, as ultra vires Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India," it said.

It also sought quashing of BCI's resolution to the extent it purports to increase the statutory composition of state bar councils beyond the limit prescribed under Section 3(2)(b) of the Advocates Act.