Did Chhattisgarh High Court question the order by Bar Council of India?

In Chandra Prakash Jangade vs. Bar Council of India & Ors. (2026) WPC No. 103 of 2026, the Chhattisgarh High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma had questioned an order signed off by Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra to defer the election of office bearers to the Chhattisgarh State Bar Council and asked the BCI to explain the basis of such a decision. The petitioner had sought quashing of the impugned order dated January 6, 2026 issued by the Chairman, Bar Council of India. of The present writ petition was listed urgently on the ground that the election of the office bearers of the Chhattisgarh State Bar Council as well as the Member to the Bar Council of India was scheduled to be held on January 9, 2026 but the same was deferred by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India by the order dated January 6, 2026. 

The grievance of the petitioners arose out of an order dated January 6, 2026  passed by Chairman, Bar Council of India, wherein it is stated that the Bar Council of India had received certain inputs/information from multiple sources, described as rumours, suggesting that a few members were allegedly involved in corrupt practices, including horse-trading, and that there was an apprehension that such persons may get elected as office bearers by adopting corrupt, illegal and unethical means, thereby undermining the fairness and purity of the electoral process. BCI had decided to constitute an Inquiry Committee headed by a former Judge of a High Court with two Senior Advocates as its members, directing the Committee to submit its report to the Bar Council of India within a period of ten days.

The petitioner had submitted that the impugned order was passed by the Chairman, Bar Council of India to further delay the election process. 

The High Court at Bilaspur had pointed out that State Bar Councils are statutory bodies and cannot function indefinitely without elected office-bearers. 

In it's 5-page long order dated January 9, 2026, the Court had observed:"4 At this stage, a bare perusal of the impugned order prima facie reveals that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. No specific instance, material, or identifiable act of malpractice has been referred to in the order so as to justify the extreme step of deferring a duly notified election process. While the objective of maintaining purity of elections is undoubtedly laudable, any interference with an ongoing or scheduled electoral process must rest on cogent material and demonstrable necessity. Elections to statutory bodies form the backbone of democratic governance and cannot be lightly deferred, particularly when such elections are already overdue. Any decision to postpone elections must therefore be informed by transparency, fairness, and proportionality, and must be supported by tangible material rather than mere apprehensions or unverified information."