The Chhattisgarh High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the non-functioning of the State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh, initiating a Public Interest Litigation (WPPIL No. 25 of 2025) to address the administrative paralysis resulting from the absence of an elected body since February 2, 2021. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, has sought responses from the concerned authorities and directed urgent remedial measures.
Background of the Case
The case highlights the serious consequences of governance failure within the State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh. With no elected body in place for over four years, several crucial statutory functions have come to a standstill, including:
– Admission of new advocates and maintenance of advocate rolls
– Regulation of professional conduct and misconduct inquiries
– Protection of advocates’ rights and welfare initiatives
– Promotion of legal reforms, publication of journals, and organization of seminars
– Supervision of legal aid programs
– Management of election-related funds and law libraries
The High Court, recognizing the urgency and gravity of the matter, initiated this suo motu PIL to ensure that the administration of legal affairs is restored without further delay.
Court Proceedings and Observations
The matter was heard on February 6, 2025, where the following key arguments were presented:
1. Role of Bar Council of India (BCI) and State Bar Council’s Inaction
During the hearing, Mr. Palash Tiwari, counsel for the State Bar Council of Chhattisgarh (respondent no. 3), admitted that the last elected body’s term ended on February 2, 2021, and no fresh elections have been conducted since. The primary reason cited was “failure in verification rules,” which prevented the election process from proceeding.
To address the vacuum, the Bar Council of India (BCI) had constituted a Special Committee to manage the State Bar Council’s affairs. However, despite repeated requests from the State Bar Council to the BCI for the appointment of an observer and a returning officer to facilitate elections, no action has been taken to date.
2. Bar Council of India’s Response
Representing the Bar Council of India (respondent no. 2), Mr. Shivang Dubey sought additional time to obtain instructions and submit an appropriate response, as he had only recently received the case brief.
3. Court’s Directions
Acknowledging the seriousness of the matter, the High Court directed all concerned parties to submit their responses before the next hearing on February 12, 2025. The court emphasized the necessity of immediate corrective steps to revive the State Bar Council’s functioning and conduct pending elections.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
1. “Failure in verification rules” is an unacceptable excuse for delaying elections for over four years.
2. The Bar Council of India (BCI) has failed in its responsibility to facilitate elections despite repeated requests.
3. The High Court’s intervention signals the importance of upholding institutional integrity in legal governance.
4. The case highlights the need for urgent election reforms to prevent such governance failures in the future.
