The Bar Council of India (BCI) has formally lodged a strong protest with Chief Justice of India Surya Kant regarding what it terms “baseless and reckless” oral observations made by a single judge of the Kerala High Court. In a letter dated January 26, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra expressed deep institutional concern, alleging that the High Court judge’s remarks concerning the State Bar Council elections disturb the constitutional balance between the Bar and the Bench.
The controversy stems from a petition filed before the Kerala High Court challenging the nomination fee of Rs 1.25 lakh prescribed for the ongoing Bar Council elections. The BCI has taken strong exception to the court entertaining this challenge and the subsequent oral remarks made during the proceedings, citing binding directions from the Supreme Court that restrain High Courts from interfering in the election process.
Restraint Not Vulnerability
In his communication to the CJI, Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra emphasized that the BCI has often maintained a conscious silence regarding “excesses, lapses and malpractices within certain quarters of the judicial system” solely to preserve the judiciary’s dignity. However, he cautioned that this restraint should not be misconstrued as weakness.
“Sweeping observations casting aspersions on the Bar Council of India during an election being conducted under the direct supervision of this Hon’ble court create a perception that restraint shown by the Bar is being mistaken for vulnerability,” the letter stated. Mishra warned that such comments risk converting the mutual respect between the Bar and the Bench into “institutional friction.”
Supreme Court Mandate and Election Framework
The BCI highlighted that the nomination fee structure, including the disputed Rs 1.25 lakh amount, is part of an election framework that has already been placed before and approved by the Supreme Court. The letter argued that since the field is “expressly occupied” by the Apex Court, the Kerala High Court’s decision to entertain a challenge was “wholly unwarranted.”
Furthermore, the BCI clarified the financial mechanics of the election fees. Mishra stated that the entire amount collected from nomination fees vests exclusively with the respective State Bar Councils. The BCI, he asserted, does not receive or benefit from any portion of this fee.
Financial Burden on the Legal Fraternity
Refuting implied criticisms regarding funds, the BCI Chairman pointed out the massive financial undertaking required to conduct these elections pursuant to Supreme Court directions. The Council is set to incur expenditure exceeding Rs 20 crore. These funds cover travel, boarding, lodging, and honorariums for the “high-powered election committees” and the “high-powered election supervisory committee,” which are comprised of former High Court judges.
“No government or external financial assistance is provided for this purpose. These are funds contributed entirely by the legal fraternity, and this basic reality ought to be realised before raising fingers or making any effort to tarnish the image of the apex elected body of advocates,” the letter read.
Call for Intervention
The BCI has requested Chief Justice Surya Kant to issue appropriate advisories or directions to ensure that election-related matters remain confined to the exclusive mechanism constituted by the Supreme Court.
The letter concluded with a stern caution: if such “unwarranted attacks” persist, the representative bodies of advocates may be constrained to resort to lawful collective protest and pursue constitutional measures to seek administrative action.
