The Supreme Court of India has sought responses from the Bar Council of India and Bar Council of Telangana on a plea challenging a 2023 rule disqualifying advocates with multiple pending serious criminal cases from contesting Bar Council elections. The petitioner argues that disqualification based on mere pendency of cases violates the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday asked the Bar Council of India (BCI) and the Bar Council of Telangana to file their replies on a petition challenging a rule introduced in 2023 which bars advocates from contesting Bar Council elections if two or more serious criminal cases are pending against them.
A Bench consisting of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to both the BCI and the Bar Council of Telangana to examine the constitutional validity of Rule 4 of the Bar Council of India Rules, 2023.
ALSO READ: BCI Cracks Down on Fake Online LL.M. Courses, Issues Strict Advisory
The matter came before the top court on a petition filed by an advocate, Srinivas G, whose nomination for the Telangana State Bar Council elections was rejected. The returning officer rejected his nomination on the ground that two criminal cases of a serious nature were pending against him and that these cases had not been disclosed.
After the rejection by the returning officer, the decision was challenged but was later upheld by the High-Powered Election Committee.
As per the challenged rule, an advocate becomes ineligible to contest Bar Council elections if two or more criminal cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment of “seven years or more” are pending against the candidate as on a date not later than nine months before the election.
The rule also clearly states that the pendency of only one such criminal case would not, “by itself”, result in disqualification from contesting the election.
In addition to this condition, the rule lays down that an advocate should not have been punished by any disciplinary committee, should not be a convict, and should not have any disciplinary proceedings pending against him or her within nine months before the election.
The rule further mandates that the candidate must be a “regular practitioner” and should not be engaged in any other job or occupation. Advocates who work as handwriting experts or those who appear as witnesses in support of any litigant are also barred from contesting Bar Council elections under the same rules.
The rules also provide a remedy to candidates who are dissatisfied with the decision of the returning officer. Any aggrieved candidate may approach the Central Election Tribunal of the BCI within three days, and the decision of the tribunal is final and binding.
Challenging the validity of the rule, the petitioner argued before the Supreme Court that disqualifying an advocate merely on the basis of pending criminal cases violates the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court to BCI: Do Not Interfere in Legal Education Matters
The petitioner submitted that this principle forms a “core part of criminal jurisprudence” and cannot be ignored unless a person is convicted by a competent court.
After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Bar Council of India and the Bar Council of Telangana and listed the matter for further hearing on February 20.
Click Here to Read More Reports On BCI
