The Allahabad High Court has ruled that neither the Bar Council of India nor the State Bar Council possesses the statutory authority to regulate or control the elections of District Bar Associations, which are governed by their own bye-laws.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta disposed of a writ petition challenging a directive that had put a temporary embargo on Bar Association elections across Uttar Pradesh. The Court held that while the Bar Council of India (BCI) has supervisory power over State Bar Councils, this authority does not extend to controlling the election schedules of independent Bar Associations.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Mohd. Arif Siddiqui, a practicing advocate and member of the Benaras Bar Association, Varanasi. The petitioner, a prospective candidate for the post of President in the forthcoming 2025-26 Benaras Bar Association election, was aggrieved by a directive issued by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (Respondent No. 3).
On October 25, 2025, acting on orders from the Bar Council of India (Respondent No. 2), the State Bar Council issued a direction to all Bar Associations in Uttar Pradesh not to hold or notify elections for the period commencing from 15th November 2025 to February 2026. The stated objective of this embargo was “to ensure that the electoral process of the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council proceeds without distraction or conflicting schedules of proposed Bar Association elections during the same time.”
Arguments and Legal Contentions
During the hearing, the counsel for the State Bar Council informed the Court that a petition raising similar points, Vijay Pal Singh Tomar vs. Bar Council of India, was pending before the Supreme Court. However, the Court noted that the said petition had been disposed of on December 5, 2025, with liberty for the petitioner to join the main proceedings in M. Vardhan vs. Union of India and another.
Upon reviewing the Supreme Court’s order dated November 18, 2025, in M. Vardhan, the High Court observed that the controversy before the Apex Court revolved around the “fair, transparent and timely conduct of elections for the State Bar Council and not the elections to the Bar Associations of the district.” The Bench noted that District Bar Association elections “governed by their own bye laws” did not appear to be the subject matter of the pending Supreme Court case.
The Court specifically questioned the Bar Council of India regarding the statutory authority used to direct the State Bar Council to place an embargo on District Bar Association elections. The counsel for the BCI relied on:
- Section 7(g) of the Advocates Act: Which empowers the BCI to exercise general supervision and control over State Bar Councils.
- Section 48-B of the Advocates Act: Which empowers the BCI to give necessary directions to the State Bar Council in the exercise of its general supervision.
The State Bar Council argued that it issued the directive to the associations in compliance with the BCI’s instructions. When pressed on its authority to enforce such directions on District Bar Associations, the respondent counsel referred to the “model bye laws of the Bar Associations of U.P.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court rejected the respondents’ contentions regarding their power to halt association elections. The Bench clarified the extent of the BCI’s supervisory powers, stating:
“Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Bar Council of India did not have the authority control or regulate the elections of Bar Association, which are governed by their own bye laws. They had the authority to issue the said letter to the State Bar Council but the State Bar Council had no authority under the existing law to pass a direction to the Bar Associations of the state to withhold their elections for the aforementioned period.”
The Court emphasized that the State Bar Council is “not possessed any authority of a statute or the rules, to regulate or control the election of the Bar Association.”
Decision
The High Court disposed of the petition, setting aside the restriction on holding elections. The Court permitted the concerned Bar Association to proceed with its electoral process “strictly in accordance with its Byelaws.”
However, to address the practical concern of conflicting schedules raised by the respondents, the Court imposed a specific condition regarding the timing of the polls. The Bench directed:
“…since the elections of the State Bar Council have also been notified, therefore, while notifying the schedule for elections of Bar Associations, they shall ensure that there is no clash between the election schedule of the Bar Council of U.P. and Bar Association and there must be a gap ten day between the both elections.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Mohd. Arif Siddiqui Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others
- Case Number: WRIT – C No. 40685 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Anish Kumar Gupta
- Date of Judgment: December 08, 2025
- Counsel for Petitioner: Bairister Singh
- Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C., Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Sai Girdhar, Kritika Singh (ACSC), Priyanka Midha (ACSC), Manoj Kumar Mishra (SC)
