The Supreme Court Today (Aug 21) expressed concern over the large sums of money that are generally spent by candidates in elections to Bar Councils and Bar Associations. Bench remarked that the issue needs to be comprehensively examined while hearing a suo motu case initiated to frame guidelines to strengthen Bar bodies across the country.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed its concern regarding the substantial sums of money typically spent by candidates during elections to Bar Councils and Bar Associations.
A Bench composed of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta highlighted the need for a comprehensive examination of this issue.
The Court was addressing a suo motu case initiated with the intent to establish guidelines aimed at strengthening Bar bodies across the country. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar raised concerns about the arbitrariness in the admission processes to Bar associations and pointed out areas where reforms could be implemented.
He remarked,
“The number of lawyers coming in are huge. They want to get into a good (Bar) association. What should be the guidelines? One allegation is (that) it is arbitrary. Role of Bar association, criteria for admissions, facilities we can offer, contentious (issue) is whether we can remove. Then (comes) elections!”
This led Justice Kant to comment on the financial aspects of Bar body elections, questioning,
“At present how much money is being spent on elections? From where this money is coming? Who is responsible? And then so many election petitions challenging the elections! We are not on any particular council or association. Maybe there should be an independent arbitrator for this. Please identify the issues that require to be comprehensively addressed.”
The Bench also voiced concerns about individuals with criminal backgrounds being elected to office bearer positions in Bar associations, stating,
“There needs to be discipline and perhaps some orientation. So, (it’s) not only about entrance to the Bar, but why not even minimum criteria to be elected? Some Bars we are getting complaints that persons with criminal backgrounds are getting elected. What do we do?”
Previously, the Court had involved the Bar Council of India (BCI), various State Bar Councils, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA), and various Bar associations across High Courts as parties to this case.
The Bench had also remarked that Bar councils and associations should be kept free from political influences to address the broader issues affecting lawyers.
Justice Kant provided further clarity on the Court’s focus during these proceedings, emphasizing institutional reforms.
He observed,
“We are not on grievances, but reforms. We understand … that these are like cooperative societies that do not want any reform, that they will avoid. In no uncertain terms we are saying this, all Bar associations have to understand. We know how to deal with this. We have to take a look at how they are functioning and how the judiciary is also being paralysed. Pan India basis. Let us see what should be criteria for admitting members to the Bar, in district (courts), Supreme Court etc. Should it be uniform or tiered?”
The Court acknowledged challenges in enforcing existing rules governing Bar body elections, such as the rule limiting advocates to voting in only one Bar association’s elections. It also noted that regional differences might exist depending on the nature of the Bar body and the fees they charge.
Counsel representing various Bar bodies requested additional time to gather and submit their perspectives on the desired reforms.
Justice Kant emphasized that the proceedings were not adversarial, stating,
“Let us make it clear it is not adversarial litigation. We are concerned with the profession’s stature and making investment on long term basis, ultimately. It does not matter when I or my brother will retire. Comprehensive suggestions are needed.”
The Court appointed SCAORA President Vipin Nair as the nodal counsel to collect suggestions from Bar associations and Senior Advocate S Prabakaran as the nodal counsel for collating suggestions from State Bar Councils.
The suo motu case was initially triggered by allegations of discrimination within the Madras Bar Association. This led the Court to consider framing uniform guidelines to strengthen Bar Associations across India.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Bar Body Elections
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
