BCI Ki Garima Bachao Rashtriya Sangharsh Samiti formed, legitimacy of Bihar State Bar Council Election-2023 is in question before "Tribunal/Committee" of BCI

Bihar State Bar Council does not have duly elected members, the members from the State Bar Councils are elected for a period of five years. One State Bar Council elects one of its members for Bar Council of India. The Council elects its own Chairman and Vice-Chairman for a period of two years. If Bihar State Bar Council has total 47,528 voters, how did  voting of 56,350 voters took place? 

After the initiative of Allahabad and Bombay bar associations, on August 20, 2026, a meeting was held in the evening hours at Shatabdi Bhawan, Advocates Association, Patna High Court to launch BCI Ki Garima Bachao Rashtriya Sangharsh Samiti (BCIGBRSS) with S. Tripathi, member, Bar Council of India (BCI) and D. N. P. Yadav, former Vice-President, Bihar State Bar Council as it's conveners. (BCIGBRSS)'s committees are being formed in all the states. Journalists of all the newspapers who cover courts in Patna boycotted the coverage of the BCIGBRSS's program to express of solidarity with BCI's chairman who is from Bihar.  The coordination committee of the three associations of advocates of Patna High Court also expressed solidarity with the Bihari chairman of BCI. It issued a joint statement to communicate to the organiser of the meeting that the premises of the Shatabdi Bhawan cannot be used without prior application and permission. But they could not persuade the national media to demonstrate similar solidarity.  

Disregarding the joint statement of coordination committee of the three associations of advocates, BCIGBRSS's program was conducted from 4 PM till late evening hours. It was followed by a Masal Julus, torchlight procession. Senior advocate B. Chaudhary has been made the convener of Bihar unit of BCIGBRSS and R. S. Rai has been made its secretary. Advocates believe that the BCI should respect the interests of advocates and their freedom of expression instead of making arbitrary decisions. BCI should come to the defence of advocates whenever they face assault on their rights.  

 

BCIGBRSS, the newly formed organization of lawyers and jurists has been formed in the backdrop of protests against Chairman, BCI. The main objective of this protest committee is to protect the reputation, transparency, and democratic rights of lawyers of the BCI. Besides BCI member from Uttar Pradesh, Advocate S. Tripathi, BCI member M. K. Narendran, from Kerala, called for chairman's resignation. The latter made this demand directly before the General Council. Senior Advocate S. Reddy, BCI Co-Chairman has also sought BCI's chairman's resignation who is BCI's chairman for more than 14 years.  

 

The tenure of the BCI Chairman and Vice-Chairman is limited to two years under Rule 12(2). But a Gazette notification dated April 21, 2025 provided for a five-year tenure from April 17, 2025 to April 16, 2030. This has been challenged the Supreme Court. Notably, the proviso to Section 4(3) of the Advocates Act is only a transitional provision and cannot authorise indefinite continuation of an elected BCI member. 

BCI chairman is chairman of BCI only because he was supposedly elected in Bihar State Bar Council Election-2023. 

One member is elected by each State Bar Council subsequent to the election of the State Bar Council from its existing members to represent them on the BCI. BCI consists of the Attorney-General of India, as ex-officio member; the Solicitor-General of India, ex -officio member, one member elected by each of the 24 State Bar Councils from amongst its members.

By now it is clear among the aggrieved advocates of Bihar that the a large number of advocates were not allowed to be included in the advocates voter list when the Bihar State Bar Council Election-2023 was conducted in an unfair manner. Its result was challenged in the Patna High Court which asked him to avail alternative remedy. Its adjudication is pending before the Election Tribunal of the BCI. 

\

The aggrieved advocates in Bihar include R.K. Singh, A. Kumar, P. K. Paswan, R.S. Roy, Alka Pandey, P.K. Singh, F.A. Khan and RJP Singh. They pursued a case the Patna High Court. Notably, ahead of the Bihar State Bar Council elections in December 2023, The Gazette of India published a 2-page long notification dated June 23, 2023 on June 26, 2023 under the subject "The house in order to improve the Standard of Legal Profession further feels the need to repeal Rule 32 and new Rule 32 of Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice".    

The new Rule 32 reads: "Rule 32. In case the term of elected members of any state Bar Council is likely to expire/expires due to delay in the process of identification of non-practicing advocates or verification of their certificates or delay in the preparation in the electoral roll for the election to the state Bar Councils due to the aforementioned reasons, the Bar Council of India may allow the elected members/and the office-bearers of the State Bar Council(s) to continue to function beyond their extended tenure under Section 8 of the Advocates’ Act, 1961 in order to complete the process of verification and in order to ensure that no non-practicing Advocate becomes a voter or a member of any state Bar Council. The State Bar Council(s) shall be required to complete the process of verification within a period of 18 months from the date of extension of their tenure by the Bar Council of India and shall complete the process of election within a period of 6 months therefrom. In case, of failure to complete the process of verification and the election within the said extended period as prescribed under this Rule, the Bar Council of India may dissolve the State Bar Council and shall proceed to constitute the Special Committee as provided under Section 8A of the Advocates Act, 1961." It also stipulates that "In case of any doubt or dispute as to the meaning, interpretation, execution of these Rules arises, the Bar Council of India shall be the final authority to settle such issues and its decision thereon shall be final."

Ratan Kumar Singh, the petitioner had filed in the High Court on February 16, 2024. It was registered on March 14, 2024. A. Kumar, P.K. Paswan, R.S. Roy, Alka Pandey, P.K. Singh, F.A. Khan and RJP Singh were the counsels for the petitioner. The five other respondents were Chairman, Bar Council of India, Bihar State Bar Council, through its Chairman, Returning Officer, the Bihar State Bar Council Election- 2023, Chief Observer, Bihar State Bar Council Election- 2023 and all the Members of Bihar State Bar Council. 

In Ratan Kumar Singh vs. The Chairman, Bihar State Election Commission & Ors. (2024), the 44th Chief Justice of Patna High Court, K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy dismissed the petition with liberty to explore the alternative remedy. The 4-page long judgement dated September 4, 2024 observed:"There is an alternate remedy provided in the Rules itself which the petitioner would be entitled to pursue, if he so desires. We find no reason to interfere with the Rules, specifically the amendments brought in or the elections; which have been concluded and results declared. The intervenor application is also filed, which, in the circumstance of the main matter being rejected does not survive." Ratan Kumar Singh, the petitioner, a practicing Advocate had filed the writ petition challenging the amendment made in 2023 to the Bar Council of Bihar Election Rules, 1968. He had also challenged the elections conducted in the year 2023 to the State Bar Council. The petitioner had submitted that the State of Bihar has less number of Voter-Advocates than more voters&Advocates voted in the election! 

The dispute regarding December 2023 election of the Bihar State Bar Council is pending before the Election Tribunal, one of the 15 committees of BCI. It is noteworthy that doctrine of ejusdem generis is relevant in this regard. The expression ejusdem generis-”of the same kind or nature”-signifies a principle of construction whereby words in a statute which are otherwise wide but are associated in the text with more limited words are, by implication, given a restricted operation and are limited to matters of the same class are genus as preceding them. If a list or string or family of genus-describing terms are followed by wider or residuary or sweeping-up words, then the verbal context and the linguistic implications of the preceding words limit the scope of such words. But the preceding words or expressions of restricted meaning must be susceptible of the import that they represent a class. It implies that the Election Tribunal, is essentially a committee of the BCI. 

Given the fact that at present, Bihar State Bar Council does not have duly elected members, it has removed the page mentioning the names of members of the Bar Council from 2025 issue of the Bihar Bar Council Journal, although the same was mentioned in the 2024 issues. 

Ahead of the Bihar State Bar Council election, three Central Election Tribunals/Committees were constituted on June 25, 2023 which published as the 18-page long notification dated October 9, 2023. The notification on the subject of "Regulations Governing the procedure for Election Petitions and applications Before the Central Election Tribunal/Committees of the Bar Council of India for resolution of issues relating to Election Disputes and other related matters of elections of the State Bar Councils and the Elections of Member Representatives to the Bar Council of India from the State Bar Councils" was published in The Gazette of India. 

The BCI claimed that it constituted these three Central Election Committees/Tribunals for looking into and ensuring free and fair elections of different State Bar Councils in the light of directions/observations of Supreme Court in the year 2017. Every Tribunal as per Rules in this regard is headed by a former Chief Justice of High Court who is the Chairman and two other former Judges of High Courts as per the prescribed Rules. Past experience has shown that at many places many Advocates, who fill up the verification forms, still go missing from the list of voters, while several names are included without any verification forms. This apart, thousands of names/father names/enrolment numbers are wrongly mentioned in voter lists. Sometimes very ugly scenes are created at polling booths, at the time of election, and/or during the counting of votes. Even there are complaints of large-scale adoption of corrupt practices, distribution of money etc. for votes, and the use of posters/hoardings against the norms and Rules of Bar Council of India, which makes the candidature of a candidate liable to be cancelled/rejected. 

The BCI constituted these Committee(s) to adjudicate and decide such issues/disputes and also to decide/resolve all the objections, issues relating to elections right from any objection relating to electoral roll, acceptance/rejection of nomination, matters/complaints relating to adoption of corrupt practices or use of unfair means in the elections and/or to decide any sort of dispute/matter relating to election of Members of State Bar Council or BCI as the case may be. The day to day affairs of the State Bar Councils are to be looked after by the State Bar Councils only, but the orders or directions of these Tribunals/Committees will be binding on the State Bar Councils, Returning Officers and/or the Observers with regard to the process of election. The Tribunal has been empowered to address and dispose off interim matters, complaints, or other applications expeditiously in a summary manner, and it may do so without requiring a formal hearing with the involved parties, on the basis of documentary evidence before it. Besides this, the Tribunal is empowered to take cognizance of some matters suo motto and is vested with the ability to proactively initiate proceedings in certain instances, and may issue directives or orders as necessary to uphold the principles of fairness and transparency throughout the election and counting processes. 

The notification provides details about the composition of the Tribunals/Committees. 

 

Tribunal No. 1 comprises of Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Former Chief Justice, Patna High Court,  Justice Arun Tandon, former Judge, High Court of Allahabad and local former Judge to be nominated by the State Bar Council.  

 

Tribunal No. 2 comprises of Justice S. Mukherjee, Former Chief Justice, High Court of Karnataka,  Justice Shivaji Pandey, former Judge, Patna High Court and  local former Judge to be nominated by the State Bar Council. 

 

Tribunal No. 3 comprises of Justice Rajendra Menon, Former Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi, Justice M. Sathyanarayanan, former Judge, Madras High Court and local former Judge to be nominated by the State Bar Council.   

The notification states that "An appeal may be filed within 60 days of the Tribunal's order being communicated to the party as provided under Section-38 of the Advocates Act, 1961." It provides a note which reads: "On earlier occasions, the petitions were filed against the order passed by the Central Election Tribunal (s) of B.C.I. only before the Hon’ble Supreme Court." It implies that High Court need not entertain appeal against Tribunal's order. It also states that "Where no specific provision is made in the procedure/rules the direction of the Tribunal may be sought".

Besides the three pre-existing Elections Tribunals/Committees constituted by BCI's chairman, in a related development, Supreme Court has constituted two Election Tribunals for adjudication of disputes arising out of the State Bar Council elections conducted under the Supreme Court-monitored process in Savita Devi @ Savita Dhanda & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2026) by its order dated May 18, 2026. The Election Tribunals constituted are as follows:

Election Tribunal 4

(i) Justice Deepak Gupta, former Judge, Supreme Court of India, as Chairperson;
(ii) Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, former Chief Justice, Andhra Pradesh High Court, as Member;
(iii) Ms. Mahalakshmi Pavani, Senior Advocate, as Member.

Election Tribunal 5

(i) Ms. Justice Hima Kohli, former Judge, Supreme Court of India, as Chairperson;
(ii) Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, former Chief Justice, Jharkhand High Court, as Member;
(iii) Ms. Kaveeta Wadia, Senior Advocate, as Member.

The Tribunals constituted by the Supreme Court are pure Tribunals. But the three pre-existing Tribunals are "Tribunals/Committees".   

Supreme Court's order reads: "6. The aggrieved parties shall be at liberty to submit their respective claims before these Tribunal(s). We request the Tribunal(s) to decide all the issues, including interim directions, expeditiously. 7. All the State Bar Councils are directed to keep the records intact till the election disputes are finally decided by the Tribunal(s). 8. We may hasten to add that the petitioner’s (in W.P. (Civil) No. 614/2026) claim to have secured the highest votes amongst the unsuccessful candidates shall also be examined expeditiously." The petitioners 

In a significant development, the Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 was passed by the the Rajya Sabha on August 11, 2026. It was approved by Lok Sabha on August 10, 2026. The new laws applies to 16 Tribunals, Appellate Tribunals, and Authorities which will be constituted by an independent National Tribunals Commission (NTC), dominated by the high-ranking members of the judiciary, replacing the central government, which was given the charge of making key appointments and services conditions according to the now repealed Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. In Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India [(2026) 2 SCC 1], the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 and had directed the establishment of an independent National Tribunals Commission. But the Tribunals/Committees constituted by the BCI are not as independent as the ones envisaged under the new law and as per the letter and spirit of the Supreme Court's directions. 

Earlier, in Rajiva @ Rajiv Ranjan vs. Bihar State Bar Council, Justice Mohit Kumar Sah had passed a judgement dated July 31, 2023, wherein, he observed:"4. A decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been brought to my notice reported in the case of Anup Singh v. Bar Council of India, 2008 (2) BBCJ 126. The Court does not feel very happy after reading the same. Supreme Court has categorically held that at no occasion any election to a Bar Council is held in time. In most of the occasions the statutory life of the Bar Council has been extended by another six months by not holding an election well within time under the statute. This seems to be universal phenomenon across the country. This by itself may cast some doubt over the bona fide of the functioning of such body in matters of holding election within time. 5. It does not enthuse this Court to enter into such dispute between lawyers on the judicial side. A body consisting of eminent and seasoned counsels should be able to handle their affairs in conformity with the law but, since there seems to be a failure on their part which is statutory, the matter has travelled to the Court. The Court has no option but to resolve the issues in this regard."

The Tribunals Reforms Bill, 2026 and the provisions for NTC reveal that BCI has constituted Tribuna;s/Commitees which are not independent because it is not inclined to allow the adjudication of dispute concerning Bihar State Bar Council Election-2023 by an independent Tribunal.   

These facts indicate that BCI is yet to adopt transparency and fairness in its functioning. It is to adopt the procedure of giving advance notice and agendas for meetings, recorded resolutions, publication of confirmed minutes, annual independently audited accounts and disclosure of material contracts involving the BCI and entities controlled, promoted or substantially financed by it. It is not clear as to whether BCI preserves electronic records, metadata, financial documents, contracts, recruitment records and communications relating to the BCI and the entities, unless these records are kept it will be difficult to fix accountability for its acts of omission and commission.

Also read:Bihar Bar Council Journal removes names of members of Bihar State Bar Council due to pending dispute before Central Election Tribunal

 

Make Audit Report of Bihar Bar Council, Bihar State Advocate Welfare Trust Committee online: Ram Jiban Prasad Singh, Candidate, Bihar State Bar Council

 

Supreme Court directs Bar Council of India (BCI) to file counter affidavit in NALSAR convocation row case within two weeks, BCI chairman issues apology

In Mihira Sood & Anr. vs. Bar Council of India & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's 3-Judge Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana passed an order dated August 14, 2026, wherein, it directed:"no punitive action shall be taken against the students or Faculty of NALSAR University of Law at the instance of Bar Council of India or any State Bar Council in respect of the incidents mentioned in the subject letters." The petitioner was represented by senior advocate K. Parameshwar and advocate-on-record Rupali Francesca Samuel. Upon hearing the counsel, the Court took the matter on board and issued notice, returnable on September 3, 2026. Radhika Gautam, the counsel appearing on behalf of Bar Council of India (BCI) accepted the notice. Gautam informed the Court that "the offending Circulars have since been withdrawn." The court's order reads:"4. Be that as it may, let the counter affidavit be filed within two weeks." 

 

It all began with the way CJI dismissively responded when the matter of police brutality at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi on July 20, 2026 was mentioned before his bench. This brutality took place during the Sansad Chalo march organized by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and student and youth groups demanding the resignation of the Education Minister for national examination leak scam. The NALSAR students have expressed their strong disapproval of CJI's insensitive approach by protesting against the participation of CJI as the chief guest for their convocation. They wrote, “We feel that receiving our degrees from a dignitary whose recent public conduct, as reported, appears dismissive of serious allegations of police brutality against protesting citizens sits uncomfortably with what we have been taught to value during our time at NALSAR.” Their statement of condemnation stated that Section 7(1)(b), 7(1)(g), 7(1)(h), 7(1)(i) of the Advocates Act of 1961, establishes the functions of the BCI. "These provisions, the ones applicable to the University are only regarding the BCI's function to set standards for professional conduct and promotion of legal education. Section 24A of the Advocates Act, 1961 restricts disqualifications from enrolment strictly to convictions for criminal offences, which did not take place in the present case. To then direct State Bar Councils to restrict the enrolment of students from the Batch of 2026 does not align with the BCI's statutory functions." 

 

Subsequent to the Court's order, nation-wide condemnation, and apprehending protest from students and youth, Manan Kumar Mishra, chairman, BCI issued an apology to law students in a letter issued on Independence Day amidst bitter criticism from students of NALSAR and National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore regarding BCI's arbitrary and unauthorised order in the backdrop of the row surrounding CJI's participation in NALSAR's 2026 convocation. Mishra's statement reads:"If anything connected with the present controversy, any of my words, or letter, has hurt the feelings of our law students, I sincerely regret and apologise for the same. There should be no hesitation in saying so. An expression of regret is not a matter of prestige or ego. It is simply an acknowledgment that the feelings and concerns of our students matter". 

BCI chairman had issued an order dated stop the enrolment for NALSAR's graduating batch of 2026 after they objected to the participation of CJI Surya Kant as the chief guest for their convocation. NALSAR's Student Bar Council had demanded a public apology from Mishra. NLSIU's graduating students, current students and alumni had also issued a joint statement in this regard. NLSIU, Bengaluru students have also rejected the presence of the BCI chairperson and the CJI at their own convocation. Mishra's statement reads:"No student should be compelled to attend, and no student should feel compelled to abstain. My only appeal is that the decision should be taken independently, after considering the matter in its entirety and according to their own judgment".

Notably, on July 23, 2026, as chairman of BCI, Mishra had issued a public appeal to the country's legal fraternity, academicians, professionals and intellectuals, urging them to counter what he described as "anti-social and anti-national forces" who are attempting to exploit ongoing student protests to destabilise the country". The press release titled "An Appeal to the Intellectuals of the Country" reads:"Experts in stone pelting have been brought from Jammu and Kashmir and other states into Delhi... These miscreants are reportedly paid substantial sums to create disorder, assault police personnel, and damage public vehicles and property."

 

The case was mentioned on August 14.  When the matter was mentioned, the CJI-led bench observed:"This is absolutely uncalled for..It a dialogue between me and students."The bench added: “I myself, during student days, was involved in student activities. Peacefully they are raising voice, they should be allowed. Even if they are wrong, assuming, they have the right to protest. Who can stop them?. Why Bar Council or any other body should interfere?”.  

 

It is quite likely that the CJI will assign the case to some other bench to comply with the Latin maxim nemo judex in causa sua i.e. no one should be a judge in his or her own case incorporated in The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct adopted in 2002, endorsed by UN resolution in 2006 and reiterated in Regulation 5 (2) of Draft Regulations for Use of Artificial Intelligence in Courts, 2026 and The Restatement of Values of Judicial Life, the judicial standards and principles to be observed and followed by the Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts which was unanimously adopted in Full Court Meeting of the Supreme Court of India held on May 7, 1997.    

Also read: Supreme Court Bar Association condemns BCI's arbitrary decision to withhold enrolment of NALSAR University Law Graduates, BCI modifies, withdraws its order