The Supreme Court issued comprehensive directions restructuring the Supreme Court Bar Association, including extending the tenure of elected SCBA Executive Committee office-bearers from one year to two years from 2027, aiming to ensure broader participation, stability and more inclusive functioning within the apex court lawyers’ body.
The Supreme Court introduced a series of significant reforms concerning the composition, voter eligibility norms, and election framework of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan issued an extensive set of directions aimed at restructuring the functioning of the apex court lawyers’ body and ensuring broader, more inclusive participation in its electoral process.
One of the most notable changes introduced by the Court is the extension of the tenure of elected office-bearers of the SCBA Executive Committee from the existing one-year term to two years. The revised tenure structure will come into force from the year 2027.
ALSO READ: SCBA Election Reforms || Justice L Nageswara Rao Committee Invites Lawyers’ Inputs
The Court also introduced measures to enhance representation within the Bar Association. It directed that posts in the SCBA, except for the office of the President, may be reserved for women advocates and advocates with disabilities in order to ensure greater inclusivity and diversity in the governing structure of the association.
In a detailed framework governing voting rights, the Bench laid down fresh eligibility conditions for advocates seeking to participate in SCBA elections.
The Court held that women advocates would be eligible to vote if they had made at least 50 appearances before the Supreme Court during the preceding two years. For advocates with disabilities, the threshold was reduced significantly, requiring only five appearances during the same period.
The Bench further clarified that at least 75 per cent of an advocate’s appearances must be physical appearances before the Court, while only 25 per cent may be virtual appearances.
To ensure transparency and proper verification, the Court directed that virtual appearances be separately recorded on the Supreme Court’s digital portal. Necessary modifications are to be carried out in the portal to facilitate the independent recording of virtual participation by advocates.
The Court also clarified that voter eligibility cannot be determined merely on the basis of proximity card entries into the Supreme Court premises.
Instead, the primary basis for verifying appearances would be the official Record of Proceedings (RoP) and reports generated from the court registry. Proximity card data, the Court said, would only serve as corroborative material in cases where discrepancies arise. The Bench also broadened the scope of eligible voters by including additional categories of legal practitioners connected with the Supreme Court system.
Advocates-on-Record (AORs) who have maintained an average of 20 filings annually during the previous three years would qualify to vote. In the case of AORs with disabilities, the requirement has been relaxed to an average of five filings per year.
The Court further extended voting eligibility to non-AOR advocates who have served on the panel of mediators at the Supreme Court Mediation Centre for at least two years and have handled 20 mediation matters during that period. Advocates with disabilities in this category would require only five mediation matters to qualify.
In another significant move, the Court made veteran members of the SCBA eligible to vote if they have held membership of the association for over 25 years, provided they had exercised their voting rights at least once during the immediately preceding five years.
The Bench clarified that chamber allotment in the Supreme Court premises, or inclusion in the waiting list for chamber allotment, would not independently confer voting eligibility. Similarly, the Court ruled that mere use of a proximity card for a specified number of days or empanelment with the Supreme Court would not be treated as standalone criteria for voting rights.
The Court also rejected the suggestion that government counsel should be subjected to any separate minimum appearance requirement extending over three years.
Senior Advocates residing in the National Capital Region (NCR), including Delhi, Gurugram, Noida and Ghaziabad, were also held eligible to vote under the revised electoral norms. Apart from voter eligibility, the Court also introduced stricter conditions for advocates seeking to contest SCBA elections.
The Bench directed that a member must possess at least five years of permanent membership of the SCBA to become eligible to contest for any office within the association. For key posts such as President, Vice-President, Secretary and positions within the Executive Committee, candidates must demonstrate at least 10 years of regular appearances before the Supreme Court during the preceding decade.
To facilitate implementation of the newly introduced framework, the Supreme Court ordered that the forthcoming SCBA elections be postponed by one month from the earlier schedule. The elections are now slated to take place in August.
The judgment marks one of the most comprehensive judicial interventions in the functioning of the Supreme Court Bar Association and is expected to significantly reshape the structure, governance, and electoral participation within the country’s most prominent lawyers’ body.
Case Title: SCBA v. BD Kaushik.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
