The Allahabad High Court clarified that the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh may decide seniority disputes relating to Elders Committees under the Advocates Act, but cannot directly interfere in elections of independent Bar Associations registered as societies across Uttar Pradesh.
The Allahabad High Court has delivered a significant judgment clarifying the powers of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and the functioning of Bar Associations across the State, while issuing a detailed framework to regulate elections and the constitution of “Elders Committees” in district Bar Associations.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan held that disputes concerning the seniority of members forming an Elders Committee must be decided by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh under Section 21 of the Advocates Act, 1961. However, the Court made it clear that the Bar Council cannot directly interfere in the internal election process of independent Bar Associations registered as societies.
The Court passed the ruling while deciding multiple writ petitions involving disputes over elections and constitution of Elders Committees in district Bar Associations, including the Mau and Bijnor District Bar Associations. The Bench also quashed election-related resolutions passed by the Mau and Bijnor Bar Associations, holding that they violated the mandatory Model Bye-Laws governing Bar Associations in Uttar Pradesh.
Recognising serious gaps in the existing regulatory framework, the Court exercised its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and laid down extensive interim directions to govern the composition, powers and functioning of Elders Committees across all affiliated Bar Associations in Uttar Pradesh until formal amendments are made to the Model Bye-Laws.
Background of the Dispute
The Court was dealing with two primary petitions:
In the first matter, Chandrashekhar Upadhyay, Advocate v. State of U.P. and others, the petitioner challenged a February 4, 2026 resolution passed by the outgoing President of the District Bar Association, Mau. The resolution nominated certain members to the Elders Committee and authorised them to conduct elections without holding elections for the Elders Committee itself.
In the second case, Ankit Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, the petitioner challenged an order dated February 19, 2026 passed by the District Bar Association and Library, Bijnor, which constituted a separate 20-member committee to conduct elections instead of following the mandated Elders Committee mechanism.
Historical Context of Elders Committees
The Court traced the concept of Elders Committees and Model Bye-Laws to the landmark judgment in Shiv Kumar Akela v. Registrar, Societies, Firms and Chits (2007), where concerns were raised regarding the growing participation of non-practicing and non-resident advocates in Bar Association elections.
ALSO READ: UP Bar Council Election : Supreme Court Extends Deadline to February 2
The Court noted that previous judicial decisions had highlighted how Bar Associations were increasingly being influenced by persons who were not regular practitioners, thereby affecting the proper administration of justice and encouraging frequent strikes.
To address these concerns, the “One Bar One Vote” principle and Model Bye-Laws were introduced by the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils. These bye-laws created the concept of an Elders Committee comprising senior-most advocates tasked with conducting elections if the elected body failed to do so within the prescribed period.
Arguments Before the Court
Appearing for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, advocate Ashok Kumar Tiwari argued that all affiliated Bar Associations are required to strictly comply with the Bar Council Affiliation Rules, Model Bye-Laws, and the Bar Council of India Verification Rules.
He submitted that failure to conduct elections in time could even result in disaffiliation of a Bar Association. He also pointed to welfare benefits extended to advocates through affiliated Bar Associations, including financial assistance schemes and medical benefits.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Rakesh Pande, appearing for the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad, along with counsels for the petitioners, argued that the Bar Council cannot interfere in the internal elections of independent societies under the guise of regulatory supervision.
It was further argued that welfare schemes are intended for all enrolled advocates and cannot be denied merely because an advocate is not a member of an affiliated Bar Association.
The Court’s Observations
The Court emphasised the unique status of Bar Associations and observed that they stand on a “higher pedestal” than ordinary societies because they play a vital role in the justice delivery system.
Referring to earlier Supreme Court decisions, the Bench reiterated that the “One Bar One Vote” principle is intended to ensure that only regular practitioners participate in managing the affairs of Bar Associations.
The Court drew a clear distinction between the Bar Council’s authority to decide seniority disputes and its inability to interfere in election processes.
The Bench held:
“…under no circumstances, either pending the dispute or otherwise, issue any directions to the ‘Advocates Association’ regarding the postponement of the elections of the ‘Advocates Association’ or directives otherwise, interfering in the process of elections…”
The Court also clarified that provisions under the Societies Registration Act empowering the Registrar to conduct elections are not applicable to Bar Associations.
To resolve recurring election disputes and ensure uniformity across the State, the Court issued detailed interim directions governing Elders Committees.
The Court directed that:
- Elders Committees shall consist of the five senior-most actively practicing advocates.
- The Committees shall only handle day-to-day affairs and election-related functions and shall not take major financial or policy decisions.
- If outgoing office-bearers fail to conduct elections within 13 months, the Elders Committee must assume charge and complete elections within one month.
- If the Elders Committee also fails to conduct elections, an Extraordinary General Meeting must be convened.
- The Chairman of the Elders Committee shall retire after declaration of election results and the next senior-most advocate shall be inducted.
- Any Bar Association whose bye-laws deviate from the Model Bye-Laws must amend them after receiving notice from the Bar Council, failing which disaffiliation may follow.
The Court further directed the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to circulate the judgment to all affiliated Bar Associations and ensure compliance with the Model Bye-Laws across the State within one year.
Applying these principles to the two cases before it, the High Court quashed the Mau Bar Association’s February 4, 2026 resolution nominating members to the Elders Committee without following the prescribed process.
Similarly, the Court set aside the Bijnor Bar Association’s February 19, 2026 order constituting a separate 20-member election committee outside the framework of the Model Bye-Laws.
The Bench directed that future elections must strictly comply with the prescribed legal framework and the interim guidelines laid down by the Court.
The Court also appreciated the assistance rendered by Senior Advocates, the High Court Bar Association and the Amici Curiae who assisted in the matter, noting that they declined any financial remuneration for their services.
Case Title: Chandrashekhar Upadhyay, Advocate v. State of UP and 8 others with connected matter Ankit Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 others
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE