In a hearing aimed at evolving broad guidelines to strengthen Bar Associations across the country, the Supreme Court on Monday heard sharp concerns raised about increasing informal interactions between members of the Bar and the Bench.
The Court was dealing with a batch of petitions—originally related to alleged elitism and discrimination by the Madras Bar Association—that have now expanded in scope to address broader structural and regulatory issues concerning Bar Associations.
Senior Advocate Sirajudeen, addressing a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, said Judges are being invited to birthday parties by Bar members, causing unnecessary interaction, due to which judges are wasting their time and this ultimately sends a wrong message to the public.
The ethical framework governing judicial conduct in India, as articulated in the ‘Restatement of Values of Judicial Life’ (1999), expressly discourages judges from cultivating close personal ties with advocates. This proscription is particularly emphasized for lawyers who have regular appearances before them, to prevent any perception of bias.
This principle is not unique to the Indian judiciary but reflects a global consensus on judicial propriety. International instruments, including the ‘Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct’ and the ‘Code of Conduct for United States Judges’, contain explicit warnings. They caution judges against engaging in social associations that could create an “appearance of impropriety” and thereby erode public trust in the integrity of the judicial office.
Lack of Regulation in Constitution of Bar Associations
During the proceedings, Justice Surya Kant drew attention to the proliferation of multiple Bar Associations within individual states, some with as few as 10–15 members.
Responding to the query, Senior Advocate S. Prabhakaran, Vice-Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI), explained that Bar Associations with more than 200–300 members can seek recognition from State Bar Councils, which conduct inspections before granting registration.
However, Justice Kant observed that the Advocates Act does not empower the Bar Council to regulate the formation and functioning of Bar Associations, calling it a gray area and a vacuum that needs urgent attention.
Call for Broader Reforms in Legal Profession
The Bench asked Amicus Curiae K. Parameswar to examine whether the recognition of Bar Associations by State Bar Councils or jurisdictional High Courts would carry more regulatory weight.
Justice Kant further floated the idea of mandatory periodic examinations for advocates to ensure their knowledge remains current. The Court also criticised the ever-expanding roll of advocates without corresponding quality checks.
