Turnout in the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa elections fell sharply as only 91,849 of 1,96,154 advocates voted, raising concerns over aggressive campaigning and misuse of lawyers’ contact details. The below-50% turnout marks a drop from 2018.
A sharp decline in turnout for the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG) elections has renewed concerns about aggressive campaigning, the use of lawyers’ contact details and whether the nature of Bar politics is driving advocates away from voting.
Provisional figures show that only 91,849 of the 1,96,154 enrolled advocates voted on March 24, bringing overall turnout below 50% a drop from roughly 61% in the 2018 elections.
Low participation was recorded at major polling centres. At the Mumbai University booth, just 1,881 of 19,272 registered voters cast ballots.
ALSO READ: Bar Council Of Delhi Issues Notice On Identity Cards Required For February 2026 Elections
The Pune district court recorded 7,412 votes from 19,923 registered advocates. Other significant centres included Nagpur (3,466 of 7,977), Nashik (3,328 of 5,558), Kolhapur (2,298 of 3,840) and the Bombay Bar Association (High Court principal seat) where 1,236 of 4,313 voted.
BCMG Vice-Chairman Advocate Uday Warunjikar pointed to several possible reasons for the slump in turnout. First, he suggested that “voter fatigue” from the barrage of recorded calls made by multiple candidates during the campaign may have alienated Mumbai voters.
He said he had avoided recorded calls and video ‘reels,’ unlike many other candidates, and argued the model code of conduct may need revising to curb such excessive communications.
He also cited the inconvenience and expense of travelling to centralised polling booths, particularly in Mumbai, as a deterrent. Finally, Warunjikar said confusion created by candidates whose nominations were rejected who, he claimed, were “constantly spreading their SMS stating that the whole election process is vitiated” may have further depressed turnout.
While Warunjikar criticised campaign methods and logistics, other BCMG members explained how candidates obtain voter information.
BCMG member and candidate Sangram Desai insisted the Bar Council does not leak phone numbers, though he acknowledged candidates use various means to compile contact databases.
Desai said,
“The Bar Council is aware that such calls are made, but that data is not given by the Bar Council,”
He explained that a candidate can apply to the Council, pay Rs.10,000 and receive a pendrive with names and addresses of registered voters, but mobile numbers are never provided.
According to him, lawyers and local bar associations compile contact lists for district and taluka elections from members who voluntarily share numbers; those lists are then reused and expanded during council elections.
Desai said he preferred direct, in-person outreach, relying on a professional network he built over years through lectures and mentoring junior lawyers.
He added,
“If some data has been leaked, the candidates will definitely have to take it up with the Bar Council.”
Many lawyers, however, are chiefly concerned about how their personal information was used. Advocate Shubham Kahite said he was extremely frustrated by the nonstop text messages and automated calls in the three days before polling.
Kahite said,
“It is unprecedented in my experience and it is appalling that advocates are being targeted. The unauthorised use of data obtained from the Bar Council office without consent is a serious breach of privacy,”
He argued that using personal data for campaigning contradicts the Bar’s principles and raises questions about the Council’s duty to protect members.
Advocate Abhishek Salian said he received at least 70–80 calls after the election list was published.
He said,
“It appears like after publishing the names, the list was circulated amongst everyone. People whom I had not spoken to for years also called. I was not told how they got my number and I think it is a serious breach of privacy,”
Several advocates reported receiving campaign letters at home and suggested that last year’s verification exercise may have been used to update contact details for the Council’s roll.
Their grievances have also surfaced on LinkedIn, where lawyers questioned how BCMG members obtained their contact information.
Advocate Namrata Shah asked,
“What happened to all these ‘security measures’ BCMG claims to have to protect our data?”
Advocate Rohan K said he continued to get calls even after he stopped answering unknown numbers.
He said,
“I got calls from personal mobile numbers of the associates attached to the candidates’ office. Upon asking how they are aware of my name and contact details, they invariably would hang up,”
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Criticises Punjab and Haryana Bar Council Over Bar Election Disputes
Advocate Shivang Jain noted that lawyers in Delhi have faced similar harassment and that the issue reached the Delhi High Court.
In February, the Delhi High Court reprimanded the Bar Council of Delhi for publishing lawyers’ personal details in its voter list, which triggered unsolicited campaign calls and WhatsApp messages, and held that Bar bodies must protect advocates’ privacy.
With debates on data protection and advocates’ privacy already before the Delhi High Court, and parliament having enacted the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the BCMG’s turnout figures and voters’ complaints are likely to increase scrutiny of how Bar councils collect and use members’ data during elections.