Bar Council of India Flags ‘Baseless’ Remarks by Kerala HC Judge, Seeks CJI’s Intervention

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has written to Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant, raising serious institutional concerns over certain oral observations made by a single judge of the Kerala High Court while hearing a plea challenging the enhanced nomination fee for State Bar Council elections.

In a detailed letter, BCI Chairman and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra described the remarks as “baseless and reckless,” saying they disrupted the constitutional balance between the Bar and the Bench. The BCI pointed out that the Kerala High Court entertained the petition despite clear and binding Supreme Court directions that bar all courts from hearing election-related disputes connected to Bar Council polls.

“I write to respectfully place before Your Lordship the Bar Council of India’s serious institutional reaction to certain baseless and reckless oral observations made by the Judge of the Kerala High Court while entertaining a challenge to the nomination fee prescribed for State Bar Council elections, despite clear, binding and widely publicised directions of this Court restraining all High Courts and other courts from entertaining election-related petitions,” the letter stated.

Notably, the BCI warned that it may be forced to consider appropriate administrative steps, including seeking the transfer of judges who, according to it, indulge in practices that undermine institutional balance and erode public confidence in the system.

The issue arose after the BCI increased the nomination fee for State Bar Council elections from ₹5,000 to ₹1.25 lakh. This decision was challenged before the Kerala High Court, where Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while hearing the matter, made sharp oral observations critical of the BCI.

In its letter to the CJI, the BCI stressed that it has consistently exercised restraint and shown respect for the judiciary, even while being aware of what it described as lapses and malpractices within the system. This restraint, the Council said, was maintained to preserve institutional dignity and to avoid unnecessary attacks on democratically elected bodies of advocates.

The BCI further cautioned that sweeping remarks made during an ongoing election process—especially one being conducted under the direct supervision of the Supreme Court—could lead to avoidable institutional friction. Clarifying the controversy around the nomination fee, the Council said that the entire amount collected during State Bar Council elections goes exclusively to the respective State Bar Councils, and that the BCI neither receives nor benefits from any portion of the fee.

It added that the ₹1.25 lakh nomination fee is part of the election framework that had already been placed before and approved by the Supreme Court. The letter also highlighted the significant financial burden borne by the BCI in conducting elections strictly in line with the Court’s directions.

According to the BCI, it spends over ₹20 crore on travel, accommodation and honorarium for former judges serving on High-Powered Election Committees and Supervisory Committees. These expenses, the Council said, are met entirely by the legal fraternity, without any government or external funding.

Seeking the Chief Justice’s intervention, the BCI requested appropriate advisories or directions to ensure that election-related disputes remain within the exclusive mechanism set up by the Supreme Court and that judicial restraint is exercised to avoid unnecessary institutional conflict.