The Supreme Court of India has delivered landmark directions concerning the nomination fee for Bar Council elections, the role of High Courts in election fee disputes, and inclusive participation of specially abled advocates in Bar Council electoral processes. These rulings address long-running challenges against the Bar Council of India’s (BCI) fee structures, particularly the non-refundable ₹1.25 lakh nomination fee imposed to contest State Bar Council polls, and seek to balance electoral expenditure with constitutional inclusivity.
Supreme Court Approves ₹1.25 Lakh Nomination Fee and Restricts High Court Interference
In its order dated February 5, 2026, passed in BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA v. PRAHLAD SHARMA AND ORS. T.P.(C) No. 3577-3590/2025, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi upheld the BCI’s decision to prescribe a ₹1.25 lakh nomination fee for candidates contesting State Bar Council elections.
Table of Contents
The apex court categorically directed that High Courts shall not interfere with the conduct of State Bar Council elections on the ground of challenges to the nomination fee. It further clarified that all writ petitions pending before High Courts on this issue shall be deemed to have been dismissed.
The Court accepted the BCI’s justification that State Bar Councils incur substantial expenses in conducting elections and suffer financial strain due to reduced enrolment fees. The judgment records:
“In some of the matters, the financial conditions of the State Bar Councils have been precarious, as explained to us, especially as a result of the substantial reduction of the registration fees…”
It further observed:
“In case a reasonable amount of fees is not levied for meeting the election expenditure, it is obvious that the burden of the election expenditure shall have to be passed on amongst the members of the Bar…”
Rejecting the argument that financial support should come from the government or alternative sources, the bench remarked bluntly:
“Why should you contest elections? Don’t contest elections if you cannot pay the amount.”
The Supreme Court also directed that its order be circulated to all High Courts, ensuring uniformity and preventing judicial interference in Bar Council electoral processes on fee-related grounds.
Fee Reduction for Specially Abled Advocates
In a connected development earlier in January 2026, the Supreme Court addressed concerns raised regarding the participation of specially abled advocates in Bar Council elections. During the hearing, it was argued that the ₹1.25 lakh nomination fee was prohibitive and exclusionary for advocates with disabilities.
Senior Advocate Indira Jaising submitted that:
“Specially abled lawyers should not be required to pay such a prohibitive amount.”
Taking note of the concern, the Court acknowledged that the existing fee structure could effectively bar specially abled advocates from participating in elections. In response, the Bar Council of India agreed to reduce the nomination fee to ₹15,000 exclusively for specially abled advocates, which the Supreme Court accepted as a reasonable and symbolic concession.
Need for Structural Representation
While approving the reduced fee, the Supreme Court emphasised that meaningful representation of specially abled advocates cannot be achieved through ad-hoc measures alone. The bench highlighted the need for statutory amendments to ensure long-term inclusion and participation of persons with disabilities within Bar Councils, rather than mere temporary relaxations.
The Court underscored that true representation requires institutional safeguards so that specially abled advocates are not marginalised in professional decision-making bodies.
Balancing Financial Viability and Constitutional Inclusion
Through these rulings, the Supreme Court has sought to strike a careful balance between the financial viability of Bar Council elections and the constitutional principles of equality and access. While affirming the authority of the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961 to regulate election procedures and fees, the Court simultaneously reinforced the need for inclusivity and fair participation.
The judgments collectively strengthen electoral autonomy of Bar Councils, limit judicial disruption of election schedules, and promote a more inclusive legal profession in India.
READ THIS: “Supreme Court Declares ₹7,000 Pay for UP Contract Teachers as Begar, Orders ₹17,000 Salary with Arrears”
