The Supreme Court of India has issued a contempt notice on a petition filed by the Bar Council of India against Dhanya Kumar Jain after allegations that his criminal complaint made to police contained derogatory and contemptuous statements.
The Supreme Court of India issued a contempt notice on a petition filed by the Bar Council of India (BCI) against Dhanya Kumar Jain, President of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association.
The BCI alleged that Jain, through a criminal complaint addressed to police authorities, made derogatory and contemptuous statements.
According to the BCI, Jain’s allegations amount not only to professional misconduct, but also warrant action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India and the Rules framed to regulate proceedings for contempt of the Supreme Court (1975).
Also Read: Supreme Court to BCI: Do Not Interfere in Legal Education Matters
It is alleged that Jain wrote a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, containing false allegations against BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra and the High-Powered Election Committee headed by retired Supreme Court Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
The BCI claims that after the Supreme Court finally decided issues concerning whether office-bearers of bar associations in High Courts, district courts, or sub-divisional courts may contest State Bar Council elections, Jain circulated the document.
In addition, the BCI alleges that Jain made remarks in his letter regarding the eligibility of office-bearers to contest State Bar Council elections, including comments directed at the Chief Justice of India, Surya Kant. The BCI states that Jain questioned the appointment of Justice Dhulia as the committee chair and accused the CJI of harbouring hostility toward him.
The BCI also alleges that Jain attacked the bench’s order relating to women’s reservation in Bar bodies, describing it as a “misuse of judicial seat.”
The complaint filed by Jain stated,
“Honorable Chief Justice, to conduct the elections of the State Bars Councils, had formed a committee under the chairmanship of his favorite former Chief Justice of India, Shri Sudhanshu Dhulia, to oblige him, in which many former Chief Justices and Senior Advocates were kept as members. It was decided that many of them would be given a hefty honorarium of four and a half lakh rupees per month from the State Bars Councils, many three and a half lakh rupees per month, and many two and a half lakh rupees per month, whereas the financial condition of the M.P. State Bars Councils is extremely poor. The advocates of the state do not get more than ten to fifteen thousand rupees even in serious illnesses. This is an open loot of the money of the state’s advocates being carried out by the Supreme Court, which has caused great resentment among the advocates of the entire state. Whereas previously, the former Chief Justices whose services were taken for conducting elections by our State Bars Councils were honored with a shawl and a coconut, giving them only 51,000 rupees for the entire election period. On the contrary, nowadays many judges, after retirement, are eager to become members of various commissions by pleading before the government for their financial benefit. Such money-grubbing judges have no concern for justice,”
The BCI further alleges that Jain claimed BCI Chairman Manan Mishra had not conducted elections in several State Bar Councils for a long time due to personal interests, and that the Supreme Court after hearing advocates ordered elections to be conducted in multiple states.
The BCI’s contention is that even if Jain’s claims were assumed to be correct, they do not disclose any offence. More importantly, the BCI argues that the complaint was filed with the intention of undermining the election process.
A bench comprising the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued the contempt notice order on Wednesday after hearing Senior Advocate Guru Krishna Kumar and Advocate-on-Record Radhika Gautam, representing the BCI.
The bench has issued notice to Jain to explain why criminal contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him under the Contempt of Courts Act, why his bar licence should not be suspended, and why he should not be removed from his role as an office-bearer of the Bar Association.
The matter is scheduled to be taken up again on July 27, 2026.
Click Here to Read More Reports On BCI
Case Title: Bar Council of India vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.