The Supreme Court examined Telangana Bar Council election rules disqualifying advocates, stressing the need to balance high ethical standards of the legal profession with fairness and the presumption of innocence where criminal or disciplinary proceedings are merely pending.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today heard a petition challenging the validity of disqualification provisions under the Telangana State Bar Council Election Rules, with the petitioner arguing that the rules internally contradict each other and unfairly disqualify advocates without any conviction or disciplinary punishment.
The matter was heard by a Bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, which examined whether advocates can be barred from contesting Bar Council elections merely due to pending criminal cases or disciplinary proceedings, even in the absence of adjudication.
Petitioner’s Argument
Counsel for the petitioner drew the Court’s attention to Rule 3 of the State Bar Council Election Rules, which lays down the eligibility criteria for contesting elections.
Referring to the provision, counsel argued that Rule 3 permits any advocate to contest elections provided that:
- The advocate is a regular practitioner,
- is not a convicted person, and
- has not been punished by a disciplinary committee.
“This clearly establishes that disqualification follows only after adjudication — after conviction or disciplinary punishment,”
the petitioner submitted, emphasising that the rule reflects the settled principle of presumption of innocence.
However, the petitioner contended that Rule 4 creates a serious inconsistency. Rule 4 disqualifies an advocate if:
- a criminal case of serious nature is pending, or
- a disciplinary proceeding is pending.
“This is a stark contradiction between Rule 3 and Rule 4,”
counsel argued, stating that Rule 4 treats mere pendency as guilt, undermining fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence.
Highlighting the potential for abuse, the petitioner warned that the rule allows motivated complaints to be filed solely to prevent eligible advocates from contesting elections.
“Suppose there is a popular advocate likely to contest elections. Opponents can engineer complaints only to deprive him of contesting,”
counsel argued, adding that such tactics are commonly employed even during judicial elevation processes.
Chief Justice Surya Kant acknowledged the concern, observing:
“That is also a possibility. We see this every day.”
The petitioner further highlighted systemic delays in disciplinary proceedings, stating that one complaint against him, initiated in 2015, remains pending even after ten years.
“Because of such pendency, nomination papers are rejected,”
he submitted, adding that rejection orders themselves note displeasure over prolonged disciplinary proceedings.
When questioned by the Bench on why early disposal was not sought earlier, the petitioner responded that courts usually advise advocates to pursue remedies before disciplinary committees, while pendency continues to operate as a disqualification.
The Bench also noted that criminal cases were pending against the petitioner. Addressing this, the petitioner clarified through an affidavit that the offences were punishable up to three years and arose during the discharge of professional duties.
“The police came to my office and threatened arrest. A false case was registered due to this,”
he claimed.
Seeking specifics, Chief Justice Suryakant asked:
“Where are the FIRs? What exactly are the allegations?”
The petitioner sought time to place the FIRs and disciplinary complaints on record.
Respondents Defend Rules
Opposing the petition, the respondents defended the impugned provisions, stating that the rules were framed to uphold transparency, integrity, and ethical standards in the legal profession.
They argued that advocacy is a profession held to higher ethical standards than other public offices.
Responding to this submission, the Chief Justice observed:
“What applies to lawmakers need not apply to lawyers. A higher standard can be applied to the legal profession.”
The respondents also relied on an order of the Telangana High Court, which allegedly criticised the petitioner for unbecoming conduct and suppression of facts, remarking that the petitioner’s narrative was “a little too colourful.”
The respondents further pointed out that the Bar Council election process was at an advanced stage, with candidate lists finalised and ballot papers printed.
In response, the petitioner clarified that he was not claiming a vested right but only sought interim permission to contest pending adjudication.
“I will go by whatever Your Lordships decide,”
he submitted.
Court’s Observations
Summing up, Chief Justice Suryakant observed that the rationale behind the rules could not be ignored and noted that the provisions already recognise the possibility of engineered complaints by prescribing a nine-month cut-off period.
The Bench indicated it would balance:
- ethical standards of the legal profession,
- fairness to candidates, and
- the presumption of innocence.
Before concluding, the Chief Justice cautioned the petitioner to be mentally prepared for the possibility of withdrawal, noting that the Court could also proceed to decide the matter if necessary.
Following this exchange, the petitioner agreed to withdraw the petition, and the Court recorded the statement.
Case Title:
RAPOLU BHASKAR @ BHASKAR RAPOLU vs. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA
W.P.(C) No. 20 / 2026
READ LIVE COVERAGE
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Bar Council Elections
