Lawyer Moves Kerala High Court Challenging Bar Council Of India's Bar On Election Process For State Bar Councils

A lawyer has approached the Kerala High Court challenging the Order issued by the Bar Council of India (BCI) interdicting State Bar Councils from initiating the process of election for constituting a new Bar council, despite the expiry of the term of the existing Bar Council. 

Justice Devan Ramachandran today sought the response of the BCI and the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) in the matter. 

The BCI had introduced the BCI Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015, in a bid to identify unqualified persons with bogus certificates, and non-practicing Advocates. The Rule stipulates that the certificates of the Advocates shall be sent to the respective Universities for verification, and on receipt of the verification report, certificates of practice shall be issued to the lawyers to enable them to continue and retain their name in the roll of Advocates. 

The existing State Bar Council was elected in 2018 after the introduction of the aforementioned rules in 2015. 

The petitioner averred that the term of the previous committee expired and an ad hoc committee was in office. He submitted that the process of verification could not be completed due to the delay in receipt of verification report from various Universities. He added that since the delay alone could not be a ground for not coducting the statutory elections, a formula was worked out, and all those who had submitted application for verification, and in respect of whom response was awaited from the University, were included in the voters list, and the election was conducted in 2018. 

The petitioner pointed out that the Supreme Court has directed the constitution of a committee for effectuating the process of verification of the degree certificates of lawyers, and explicitly clarified thereon that the same could not be construed as a direction for extending the existing terms of the Bar Councils. 

The petitioner asserted that the purpose of verification contemplated under the 2015 Rules is to make the electoral process genuine, and that in Kerala, no certificates sent for verification had been found to be bogus and that those awaiting verification reports were hardly 5%. 

The petitioner added that even after the lapse of 8 years after introducing the Rules, the BCI had not been able to streamline the rolls of Advocates.

He submitted that it was at this juncture that the BCI amended Rule 32 of the 2015 Rules, unauthorizedly extending the term of the existing Bar Councils, and providing an extended term for completing the verification, as well as adding a consequential provision for constituting an Ad-Hoc Committee. 

The petitioner averred that the BCI also subsequently issued an Order dated October 10, 2023, declaring that no notification for election ought to be issued, alongwith penal consequences in the event of any such notification for election. 

It is also submitted that the extended term of the committee of the BCK is set to expire on May 6, 2024, and that the process of election would have to commence 150 days before the proposed election, as per the Rules. However, the petitioner stated that in light of the amendment and the notification issued by the BCI, the State Bar Councils are prevented from commencing the process of election, in spite of the process of verification being advanced.

The petitioner also argued that when the statute itself prescribes that the term of State Bar Councils could only be extended for a period of 6 months, there could not be any rule contrary to the same, and the amendment to the Rule to extend the term for a period of 24 months was thus absolutely invalid. 

"...an elected Bar Council is absolutely necessary. Lot many activities are to be carried out by the Bar Councils and the absence of a proper Bar Council elected from the lawyers would seriously affect the interest of the lawyers. Apart from that, when the Statute prescribes the election, under the guise of failure to implement a Rule, by the Bar Council itself within a reasonable time, they cannot take advantage of the same, and retain the existing Bar Councils, who are responsible for proper implementation of the Rule," the plea states. 

It is on these grounds that the plea has been moved seeking the notification of the BCI insofar as it interdicts State Bar Coucils from notifying elections of its members, to be set aside. Additionally, the plea also seeks the declaration of the amendment to Rule 32 of the Rules, 2015, as invalid, and the issuance of directions to the respondents to commence and complete the process to constitute a new Bar Council before the expiry of the existing State Bar Coucil. 

The plea has been moved through Advocates M. Sasindran and S. Shyam Kumar. 

Case Title: C.P. Pramod v. Bar Council of India & Anr. 

Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 38124/ 2023