Introduction:
The High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee constituted by the Supreme Court has stayed the implementation of a Bar Council of India (BCI) resolution seeking to increase the strength of elected members in State Bar Councils during the ongoing Bar Council elections. The order was passed on July 23, 2026, by a three-member Committee headed by former Supreme Court Judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, with former Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Ravi Shankar Jha and Senior Advocate V. Giri as members.
The dispute arose after the BCI passed a resolution on July 19, 2026, followed by a communication dated July 21, proposing an increase in the number of elected seats in State Bar Councils. The proposal was intended to ensure women’s representation in compliance with the Supreme Court’s earlier directions. Under the proposal, candidates already elected within the existing sanctioned strength would retain their seats, while additional seats would be created to accommodate the required reservation for women.
The proposal was challenged before the Supervisory Committee on the ground that it sought to alter the composition of State Bar Councils after elections had already commenced and, in several States, after results had been declared. The challenge also questioned the BCI’s authority to issue directions to Returning Officers and High-Powered Election Committees constituted under the Supreme Court’s supervision. The matter required the Committee to examine whether such a change could be introduced during an ongoing electoral process governed by the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Supreme Court’s earlier orders in W.P.(C) No. 581 of 2024.
Arguments of the Parties:
The appellants contended that the BCI resolution was contrary to the Advocates Act, 1961, which prescribes the strength of elected members in State Bar Councils. They argued that once the election process had begun, and particularly after results had been declared in certain States, the number of seats could not be increased through a mere resolution. According to them, any such alteration would violate the statutory framework as well as the Supreme Court’s directions governing the ongoing elections.
The appellants further submitted that the BCI had exceeded its authority by issuing directions to Returning Officers and High-Powered Election Committees established by the Supreme Court. Since these committees functioned under the Court’s supervision, they could not be directed through an administrative resolution of the BCI.
The Bar Council of India maintained that the resolution was intended to facilitate women’s representation in State Bar Councils in accordance with the Supreme Court’s mandate. During the hearing, BCI Additional Secretary Awanish Pandey clarified that the resolution and the accompanying communication were only proposals and would be implemented only after obtaining approval in accordance with law. It was also submitted that the proposal would not displace candidates already elected but would proportionately increase the number of seats to accommodate reserved positions for women.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supervisory Committee stayed the implementation of the BCI resolution and the consequential communication, holding that they could not be acted upon during the present election cycle. It observed that the ongoing elections were being conducted for seats whose strength had already been fixed under the Advocates Act, 1961, and that any increase in the number of seats after the commencement of elections would be contrary to the statutory scheme.
The Committee held that a plain reading of the BCI resolution showed that it was not only inconsistent with the governing law but also in direct violation of the Supreme Court’s order dated December 8, 2025. It noted that elections had already concluded in several States and results had been declared, making it legally impermissible to alter the composition of the elected bodies midway through the process.
The Committee also found that the portions of the BCI resolution directing Returning Officers and High-Powered Election Committees to implement the proposal were unsustainable. Since these authorities were functioning under the supervision of the Supreme Court, the BCI could not issue binding directions to them. Accordingly, the Committee held that such directions could not be implemented during the current election process.
Taking note of the statement made by the BCI Additional Secretary that the resolution was only a proposal, the Committee observed that it could become effective only after obtaining approval from the competent authorities. It further noted that issues relating to the constitution and functioning of Bar Councils were already pending before the Supreme Court, making prior approval of the Court necessary before any such proposal could be implemented.
As a precautionary measure, the Committee directed all High-Powered Election Committees and Returning Officers not to act upon the BCI resolution dated July 19, 2026, or the communication dated July 21, 2026. It also ordered that the counting process should continue strictly in accordance with its earlier order dated February 9, 2026. Additionally, the Principal Secretary of the Bar Council of India was directed to circulate the Committee’s order to all concerned authorities and submit a compliance report.
The order reinforces the principle that statutory election processes cannot be altered midway through administrative resolutions and that any modification affecting the composition of elected bodies must strictly conform to the Advocates Act and the directions of the Supreme Court. While the Committee did not reject the objective of enhancing women’s representation, it held that such reforms must be implemented only through the procedure sanctioned by law and with the approval of the Supreme Court wherever required.