Why the Court has rewritten the rules for its own Bar

The Supreme Court has stepped once more into the governance of its own Bar. On 29 May, a Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan recast who may vote in Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections, who may contest, tenure lengths of office-bearers, and campaign rules.

The directions issue from a miscellaneous application in SCBA v B.D. Kaushik (2011), where the Court has treated a court-annexed Bar association not as a private club but as an institution woven into the administration of justice.

Consequently, the 2026-27 SCBA poll will be held in the week beginning 24 August. The Court granted a month’s grace so reforms take effect before the election. The longer two-year term will apply only from 2027.

The Court anchored the reforms in Article 141, which makes its law binding, and Article 144, which obliges all authorities to act in its aid. This is the order’s most consequential move and its most contestable. A Bar association is a voluntary body with its own constitution and electorate. The directions reach into that internal democracy and reset its franchise. The Court’s answer, implicit throughout, is that a court-annexed Bar is sui generis. It is recognised by the Court, leans on it, and answers for those who practise before it. Whether Articles 141 and 144 stretch that far is the question the order invites. 

Why the Court intervened

The Court placed the dispute in an institutional frame. Bench and Bar, it said, are “two wheels of a chariot,” bound by a shared duty to keep the justice system whole. An independent judiciary, in this view, presupposes a vibrant and ethical Bar.

The underlying question is whether to confine the vote to advocates who actually practise before the Court. In the earlier B.D. Kaushik decisions the Court held that court-annexed associations differ in kind from ordinary lawyers’ bodies. They are recognised by the court they serve, and their members assist its daily work. On that reasoning the franchise could be limited to “regular practitioners.” The 2012 framework had recognised several routes to eligibility, including, minimum appearances or filings, Advocate-on-Record (AoR) status, and attendance logged through proximity-card data. The present order reopens that scheme because, the Court found, practice before it has changed since the pandemic.

The pandemic pushed courts nationwide onto virtual platforms. The Court’s 2020 video-conferencing order had recognised that technology could preserve access to justice in an emergency, and much of that practice has outlived the crisis. But a purely virtual measure may not show whether an advocate truly litigates before the Court. The application began as a plea to relax election rules during the pandemic. The Court widened it and invited suggestions from the Bar. In February 2025, it appointed a committee under former judge Justice L. Nageswara Rao to recommend reform.

Who may now vote

An advocate will be eligible with 50 appearances before the Court over the preceding two years. The threshold falls to 30 for women advocates and to five for advocates with disabilities. Of the qualifying appearances, 75 per cent must be physical and 25 per cent may be virtual. Virtual appearances must be marked separately. Proof must come from the Record of Proceedings and court orders. Proximity-card entries are corroborative only, and cannot, by themselves, settle eligibility.

For AoRs the test turns on filings: an average of 20 a year over the preceding two years, or five a year for those with disabilities.

Non-AoR mediators qualify after two years and 20 mediations in that span; five for mediators with disabilities. A new veterans’ category admits members of more than 25 years’ standing. But a veteran may contest only after voting at least once in the preceding five years.

Chamber allotment, or a place on its waiting list, no longer proves active practice. The government-counsel route is also abolished

Proximity-card use across 60 days, once a standalone qualification, survives only as corroboration. Empanelment on the Court’s amicus curiae panel no longer counts, since it need not signal regular practice.

Senior advocates resident in the NCR (Delhi, Gurugram, Noida, Faridabad and Ghaziabad), and those designated by the Court, remain eligible. Against committee advice, the Court kept them as an exception to the appearance test.

Who may contest

Five years’ permanent SCBA membership is now a precondition for any post. Beyond that, the senior offices turn on lead appearances in reported judgements, the rest on a count of appearances. Thus, presidential and vice-presidential candidates require 10 lead appearances in reported judgments over 10 years (25 over 20 years for President). 

For Secretary, 50 appearances over two years are required, 30 for women, five for advocates with disabilities. Joint Secretary, Treasurer and Joint Treasurer require 40 appearances, with 25 for women and five for persons with disabilities. Senior Executive/Executive Members require 50, 30 and five under the three categories.

Overall, the office is tied to measurable practice, with lighter thresholds for women and advocates with disabilities. The President and Vice-President tests, resting on reported judgements, will be the hardest to audit. 

The Court had earlier set aside a third of the Executive Committee for women. On 27 April it reserved the Vice-President’s post for women; on 8 May it modified that, letting the previous year’s arrangement continue for 2026.

In its final directions the Court said it may, reserve further posts for women, and advocates with disabilities, the presidency alone excepted. The formula is flexible, preserving the Court’s supervisory room rather than a fixed quota.

The Executive Committee’s term, rises to two years from 2027, followed. The reasoning is practical: a one-year body governs for eight or nine working months, too brief for real reform, and elections themselves drain time and money. To offset the longer term, a one-term cooling-off will follow each tenure, guarding against entrenched power.

The Model Code of Conduct disqualifies any candidate who offers inducement in cash or kind for votes. An offender forfeits both the current election and the next. Mobile phones are barred from the polling booth. Anyone convicted and sentenced to prison, or struck off by the Bar Council, cannot contest. The Court left room for further curbs, including a ceiling on expenditure, a nod to long-standing complaints about lavish campaigning.

The SCBA website must carry every candidate’s manifesto on a common platform. Members may opt out of campaign messaging. Elected members must file a self-appraisal at term’s end, a modest check in a milieu where manifestos rarely outlive polling day.

Why it matters

The order redraws the electorate, pinning the vote to recorded practice while easing the path for women and advocates with disabilities. It reaffirms that the SCBA is no mere private association but an institution the Court will superintend. It ratifies the post-pandemic shape of practice without surrendering to it: the 75:25 rule binds virtual access to physical engagement, rather than letting one displace the other.However, the harder questions lie in execution: how appearances are logged, how lead appearances are verified, how disability thresholds are administered, and how inducement is proved.The larger question of the Court’s role in the affairs of a professional body also remains open. What is clear is that the SCBA’s elections now carry institutional significance beyond the Bar itself.