The Supreme Court has widened the framework for resolving disputes linked to ongoing State Bar Council elections by setting up two additional election tribunals, each to be led by retired apex court judges. The move comes amid a growing cluster of petitions questioning the conduct and management of elections across several State Bar Councils.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi, directed the creation of the new panels, supplementing the tribunal already functioning under former Supreme Court judge Sudhanshu Dhulia.
One of the newly formed tribunals will function under former Supreme Court judge Deepak Gupta. Its members include former Andhra Pradesh High Court Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani.
The second tribunal will be headed by former Supreme Court judge Hima Kohli, with former Jharkhand High Court Chief Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and senior advocate Kaveeta Wadia serving as members.
The Court instructed the Bar Council of India to secure consent from all appointees and formally notify the tribunals within three days. Parties dissatisfied with election outcomes or processes have been permitted to place their grievances before the respective panels.
In a significant safeguard, the Court also ordered every State Bar Council to preserve all election-related records until the disputes reach a final conclusion.
The proceedings were not without friction. During arguments, BCI Chairman and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra sought the creation of another high-level supervisory committee on the lines of the existing mechanism headed by Justice Dhulia.
That suggestion triggered a heated courtroom exchange with senior advocate Kumud Lata Das, appearing for the petitioners. Das objected to the inclusion of BCI representatives in such oversight bodies and accused the system of allowing excessive concentration of authority within the Bar Council structure.
The verbal sparring briefly escalated before Das clarified that her comments were not personal in nature. She noted that professional disagreements between the two were longstanding and should not be viewed beyond the courtroom context. Mishra accepted the clarification, allowing the hearing to proceed on a calmer note.
Before concluding the matter for the day, the Bench acknowledged the contribution of both sides in addressing what it described as an issue of institutional importance concerning the conduct of Bar Council elections in the country.
