The Supreme Court examined Bar Council election regulations and candidate eligibility under the Advocates Act, 1961, directing review of the provision within a week, possible amendment, and referral to the Supervisory Committee to ensure a fair electoral process.
The Bar Council of Delhi has released detailed voting guidelines for its February 20–22 elections, to be held through a single transferable vote system. A total of 23 seats are up for grabs, with 30% reservation for women advocates as per Supreme Court directions.
Today, On 27th January, The Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea seeking SC/ST reservation in Bar Councils, saying petitioners must approach authorities first. “Just because Court did something for women, you come! You just want it on a platter!” Bench remarked.
Today, On 26th November, Supreme Court responded to a PIL seeking proportional representation of women, queer individuals, lawyers with disabilities, and members of marginalized communities in the Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils. The court has now issued notice in the matter.
CMS IndusLaw has filed a plea in the Delhi High Court questioning the Bar Council of India’s Rules that allow foreign law firms to operate in India, calling them unconstitutional and beyond the Advocates Act. The Court has sought clarity from the BCI on approvals from the CJI and Central government.
A new PIL filed by Advocate Yogamaya MG urges the Supreme Court to ensure fair representation of women, queer persons, and marginalized lawyers in Bar Councils. The plea highlights that only nine out of 441 council members are women, calling it a “deeply entrenched imbalance.”
Today, On 24th September, The Supreme Court imposed a Rs 50,000 fine on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa for pursuing a baseless complaint against an advocate. The judgment emphasizes accountability and discourages frivolous legal actions by regulatory bodies.
The Supreme Court has issued notice to the UP Bar Council for demanding Rs 14,000 from new advocates under “certificate of practice,” calling it a clear conflict with its 2024 ruling in Gaurav Kumar v. Union of India. The Court said Bar Councils cannot charge beyond the statutory enrolment fee.
The Supreme Court has barred State Bar Councils and the BCI from collecting any “optional” charges beyond legal enrolment fees. The Karnataka State Bar Council has been told to halt such collections at once.
The Supreme Court asked BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra to assist in checking compliance with the enrolment fee cap, saying, “We are not inclined to issue notice, but want BCI’s response to examine compliance with para 109.”
