The Allahabad High Court said advocates are the “Army of the Bench”, noting judges often cannot publicly express their agony or pain. It stressed that in such moments, only the Bar can step in to support them effectively.
The Allahabad High Court has described advocates as the “Army of the Bench” and observed that, when judges are unable to publicly express their distress through other means, it is the Bar that can come to their rescue.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Siddharth Nandan made these remarks while hearing a batch of petitions concerning the functioning of bar associations in Uttar Pradesh and the gaps in their bye-laws.
The Bench stated,
“Bar is the ‘Army’ of the Bench. The judges are required to speak through their judgement but at times they cannot express their agony or pain, publicly; then it is only the Bar which can come to their rescue.”
The Court further explained that the bye-laws of an association reflect the character and conduct of the Bar itself, and that the dignity of the profession determines the Bar’s standing.
According to the Bench, the Bar’s strength lies in protecting judges from practices that obstruct justice delivery, ensuring that no illegal or improper methods are used to influence judicial decisions.
It added that advocates must maintain discipline in communication using restrained language in correspondence, avoiding defamatory or scurrilous attacks in pleadings, and refraining from intemperate language during arguments. It also noted that lawyers who are either undisciplined or not actively practicing cannot sustain these standards.
In its judgment dated May 20, the Court noted that it is being inundated with writ petitions filed by various bar associations, particularly concerning election-related disputes. It also took note of instances where the constitution of Elders Committees which are responsible for conducting elections after the tenure of office bearers ends was disrupted.
To reduce recurring disputes, the Court directed that if any seniority conflict arises among members of an Elders Committee, the State Bar Council may resolve only the seniority issue.
However, the State Bar Council cannot issue any directions regarding the postponement of elections. The Bench clarified that deferment of polls can be decided only by the chairman or by the three senior-most members of the Elders Committee. It also stated that for determining the Elders Committee for the Advocates Association of the High Court, five designated senior-most advocates actively practicing before the High Court, based strictly on the seniority list maintained by the Allahabad High Court, must be followed.
The Court further clarified that the Elders Committee cannot take financial decisions or decisions concerning the bar association’s movable or immovable properties. It may exercise only such financial authority as is necessary for routine functioning or for carrying out the elections.
The Bench directed that the Elders Committee should be permanent in nature and consist of five designated senior-most advocates who are actively practicing before the High Court. For district-level bodies, it said seniority of Elders Committee members should be determined by date of enrollment, but only those with at least 10 years of regular practice would qualify.
On the election process and transfer of charge, the Court said: once elections are completed, responsibility must be handed over to the newly elected committee.
Thereafter, the chairman being the senior-most member of the Elders Committee will retire, and the existing members will induct the next senior-most member in the following order.
Both petitions challenged matters related to the formation of Elders Committees and the conduct of elections.
Calling the Bar the “Army” of the Bench, the Allahabad High Court cautioned that bar associations across Uttar Pradesh are increasingly being drawn into election battles driven by money power and the influence of non-practising advocates.
ALSO READ: Fake Law Degrees | “Initiate Nationwide Verification Of Advocates”: BCI Orders
It noted that repeated litigation over bar elections has reached alarming levels, indicating a deeper breakdown of institutional functioning within advocate bodies in the state.
The Court held that Bar Councils should not interfere in bar association elections beyond resolving seniority disputes, emphasizing that the dignity of the legal profession and the justice delivery system must be protected from internal disorder. It concluded that many bar associations have increasingly become sites of internal power struggles rather than bodies meant to assist courts and strengthen administration of justice.
The Bench also observed that courts are being flooded with writ petitions arising from bar election disputes due to loopholes, manipulation, and lack of clarity in the implementation of the model bye-laws framed by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
Case Title: Chandrashekhar Upadhyay, Advocate v State of UP and 8 Others