The Supreme Court of India has issued a notice to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh (UP) following submissions that the State Council has adopted a “unique method” to circumvent the Apex Court’s directions in the landmark Gaurav Kumar judgment regarding advocate enrollment.
The Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, in an order dated December 5, 2025, expressed shock at the allegations that the State Bar Council is conducting oral interviews for enrollment and charging candidates for the same.
Legal Issue and Background
The development occurred during the hearing of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 774/2025 and a connected Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No. 59883/2025 filed by Priyadarshini Saha against Pinaki Ranjan Banerjee.
The central legal issue brought before the Court pertains to the alleged non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gaurav Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 352/2023), which was decided on July 30, 2024. The petitioner alleged that the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh is attempting to “overcome the directions issued by this Court” in the said judgment.
Arguments of the Petitioner
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner drew the Court’s attention to the current enrollment practices of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. The counsel submitted that the State Bar Council “has evolved a unique method” to bypass the top court’s previous mandate.
Specifically, the petitioner argued that the State Bar Council is:
- Conducting Oral Interviews: Requiring candidates seeking enrollment to appear for oral interviews.
- Levying Additional Fees: Charging Rs. 2,500/- from each candidate “for the purpose of appearing in the oral interviews.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Taking note of the submissions, the Bench made a stern observation regarding the alleged conduct of the State Bar Council.
In its order, the Court recorded:
“The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought something very shocking to our notice.”
The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s grievance that the oral interviews and associated fees appeared to be a mechanism to circumvent the Gaurav Kumar decision.
Decision and Directions
After hearing the counsel, the Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- Issuance of Notice: Notice was issued in the Writ Petition, returnable on January 7, 2026. The Advocate-on-Record for the State Bar Council of UP accepted and waived formal notice on behalf of the Council.
- Affidavit Sought: The Court directed the State Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to file an affidavit “clarifying the aforesaid” allegations regarding the oral interviews and the Rs. 2,500/- charge.
- Direction to Bar Council of India (BCI): The Bench explicitly directed the apex regulatory body to intervene. The order stated:
“In the meantime, we direct the Bar Council of India to look into this matter and take up the issue with the Bar Council of U.P.” - Contempt Petition: Regarding the connected Contempt Petition (Diary No. 59883/2025), the Court allowed the application seeking permission to file the petition and issued notice returnable on January 7, 2026. The presence of the alleged contemnors was dispensed with for the time being.
The matter is listed for the next hearing on January 7, 2026.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Priyadarshini Saha vs. Pinaki Ranjan Banerjee (and connected Writ Petition)
- Case Numbers: Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No. 59883/2025 in W.P. (C) No. 352/2023; W.P. (C) No. 774/2025
- Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
