Advocates Act, 1961 — Bar Council Elections — Nomination fee — Power of Bar Council of India — Scope
Advocates Act, 1961 — Sections 7, 15 & 49 — State Bar Council Election Rules — Fixation of nomination fee — Enhancement from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/- — Validity.
Proceedings issued by the Principal Secretary, Bar Council of India enhancing the non-refundable nomination fee for contesting State Bar Council elections from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.1,25,000/- were challenged as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction.
— Paras 2–4
Administrative Law — Executive order — Absence of statutory source — Effect
Where an administrative proceeding does not trace its source of power to any statutory provision, rule or regulation, such proceeding can only be treated as an executive order and does not have the force of law.
— Paras 18–22
The impugned proceeding dated 25.09.2025 issued by the Principal Secretary, Bar Council of India did not refer to any statutory provision nor disclose any decision or resolution of the Bar Council of India authorising such enhancement.
— Paras 17–19
Statutory bodies — Requirement of transparency — Communication of resolutions
Resolutions of statutory bodies must be made public and communicated to all stakeholders. Proceedings issued in secrecy or without disclosure of the underlying resolution cannot bind stakeholders.
— Paras 20–21
Bar Council of India — Resolution not published — Legal consequence
Even assuming a resolution dated 07.12.2024 existed enhancing the nomination fee, the same had neither been communicated to State Bar Councils nor disclosed in the counter-affidavit and therefore lacked statutory enforceability.
— Paras 19–21
A mere internal resolution, without publication or statutory backing, does not amount to compliance with the Advocates Act or Rules.
— Paras 20–22
Election Law — Democratic process — Nomination fee — Unreasonableness
Abrupt multifold enhancement of non-refundable nomination fee has the tendency to:
• frustrate the democratic process;
• deter genuine candidates;
• stifle fair participation in elections.
— Paras 23–25
Constitution of India — Article 14 — Arbitrariness
Fixation of a non-refundable nomination fee of Rs.1,25,000/- without rational basis, justification or uniform criteria was held to be arbitrary, irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
— Paras 25–27
Advocates Act, 1961 — Federal structure of Bar Councils
Conditions prevailing in one State Bar Council cannot be mechanically applied to all States. Nomination fee cannot be fixed merely on the basis that another State Bar Council has enhanced the fee.
— Para 26
Held
Proceedings bearing BCI:D:6880/2025 (Council-STBCs) dated 25.09.2025 issued by the Principal Secretary, Bar Council of India:
• are executive in nature;
• lack statutory authority;
• are arbitrary and unconstitutional;
• liable to be quashed.
— Paras 22 & 27
Relief
Writ Petitions allowed.
Nomination fee fixed at Rs.50,000/- for the ensuing Andhra Pradesh State Bar Council elections.
— Para 29
FACTUAL MATRIX
Background
• Writ Petitions were filed by:
– Andhra Lawyers Association
– Individual Advocates
challenging enhancement of nomination fee for contesting elections to the State Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh.
Earlier Position
• Under Andhra Pradesh Gazette Notification dated 14.05.2018,
non-refundable nomination fee = Rs.30,000/-.
• This notification remained unchallenged and in force.
Impugned Proceeding
• Proceedings dated 25.09.2025 issued by the Principal Secretary, Bar Council of India fixed:
Nomination fee = Rs.1,25,000/- (non-refundable)
Reason cited:
• reduction of enrolment fee from Rs.16,000/- to Rs.600/- pursuant to Supreme Court directions.
Challenge
Petitioners contended that:
• Principal Secretary had no independent statutory power;
• no rule or regulation authorised such enhancement;
• existing State Election Rules governed the field;
• abrupt increase violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
ISSUES FRAMED BY THE COURT
— Para 15
-
Whether the impugned proceeding dated 25.09.2025 is sustainable in law without reference to statutory power?
-
Whether the proceeding is merely an executive order issued without authority?
-
Whether multifold increase of nomination fee frustrates the democratic election process?
ANALYSIS OF LAW
1. Absence of statutory source
The Court found:
• No provision of the Advocates Act cited;
• No Rule under Section 49 invoked;
• No reference to State Election Rules;
• No resolution mentioned in the proceeding.
— Paras 17–18
2. Post-facto resolution
A resolution dated 07.12.2024 was produced only during final hearing.
The Court held:
• not pleaded in counter-affidavit;
• not communicated to State Bar Councils;
• not made public;
• not traceable to statutory power.
— Paras 19–21
3. Executive order cannot override statute
The Andhra Pradesh Gazette Notification dated 14.05.2018 was statutory in nature.
An executive instruction cannot override a statutory rule.
— Paras 11, 21 & 22
4. Democratic process and proportionality
The Court held:
• nomination fee must be reasonable;
• economic inequality among advocates must be recognised;
• excessive fee deters capable candidates;
• democracy under Advocates Act cannot be reduced to formality.
— Paras 23–25
5. Mechanical fixation impermissible
The Court rejected:
• adoption of Uttar Pradesh Bar Council fee as benchmark;
• uniform fee without regard to State-wise conditions.
— Para 26
RATIO DECIDENDI
The Bar Council of India or its Principal Secretary cannot enhance the non-refundable nomination fee for State Bar Council elections without tracing the power to a statutory provision under the Advocates Act or Rules. An executive proceeding unsupported by statutory authority, unpublished resolution or reasoned justification is unenforceable in law, and an abrupt multifold increase of nomination fee which stifles participation in elections is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
No comments:
Post a Comment