SC pulls up BCI over Rajasthan bar polls, payment of judges’ honorarium

THe sublime margaret court on tues pulled up the debar Council of bharat (BCI) for constituting a committee on its own to conduct elections to the Rajasthan State Bar Council and for failing to provide adequate honorarium and logistical support to former high court judges appointed by the court to oversee bar council elections across states.A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with justices R Mahadevan and Joymalya Bagchi, took strong exception to the manner in which the BCI was dealing with former chief justices and judges who are part of the court-appointed High Powered Election Committees.“You have told the former judges appointed by us that you do not have enough money to pay their honorarium…what is this? Do judges have their own aircrafts?” the court remarked, after being told that the judges were being compelled to make their own travel bookings and logistical arrangements.The court’s sharp criticism came on a mention made by senior advocate V Giri on behalf of the Supreme Court-appointed election committee.Giri submitted that despite clear Supreme Court orders, the BCI had constituted its own committee to conduct the Rajasthan Bar Council elections. He further told the court that the honorarium payable to former judges serving on the election committees had not even been finalised.He requested the court to either pass appropriate directions or authorise Justice (retired) Sudhanshu Dhulia, who is heading the High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee, to take necessary steps.The bench questioned how the BCI could have constituted a parallel committee for Rajasthan when all other state bar council elections were being monitored by Supreme Court-appointed panels.Giri pointed out that the BCI had sought to justify its action on the ground that Rajasthan was not specifically mentioned in the Supreme Court’s November 18, 2025 order constituting the election committees. He submitted that the BCI’s action was contrary to both the letter and spirit of the court’s directions.The bench directed that the BCI would have to explain why this development was not brought to the notice of the court.Taking further exception to the financial arrangements, the bench highlighted the contradiction in the BCI’s stand. “You fixed the election fee on the ground that it will generate sufficient funds for conducting elections. Now you are telling retired judges you can’t pay them honorarium…you can’t pay travel allowances. What they will do?” it asked.“The BCI should understand the powers of this court. If they want this court to issue an order, we will,” the bench warned.The counsel for the BCI sought time, stating that they were not aware of the application and requested a day to respond. The bench then listed the matter on Wednesday, directing the BCI to explain its position.The Supreme Court had on September 24 last year directed that elections be conducted in bar councils where they were due. On November 18, it constituted High Powered Election Committees headed by former high court chief justices and comprising former high court judges to monitor each state bar council election. A separate High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee was also constituted, comprising Justice (retired) Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice Ravi Shankar Jha (former Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice), and senior advocate V Giri.Notably, the court’s strong remarks against the BCI came just a day after a letter by BCI chairperson and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra to CJI Kant.In his January 26 letter, Mishra had criticised certain oral observations made by a single judge of the Kerala High Court while hearing a challenge to the increase in nomination fees for the state bar council elections. The letter described the remarks as baseless and reckless, stating that they disturbed the constitutional balance between the Bar and the Bench.On January 23, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas of the Kerala High Court had questioned the basis for charging a nomination fee of ₹1.25 lakh, asking whether Council members were travelling “business class” and what the money was being used for. The judge also remarked that charging such an amount was “inviting a probe”.Objecting to these observations, Mishra wrote that the high court should not have entertained the matter in view of existing Supreme Court directions restraining high courts and other courts from entertaining election-related petitions. The letter by the BCI chairperson also took an unusually confrontational tone, stating that if “such attacks” from the judiciary continued, bar bodies would be constrained to seek administrative measures, including transfer of the judge.Significantly, Mishra’s letter also highlighted what he described as the heavy financial burden borne by the BCI in conducting elections under Supreme Court directions. He stated that the BCI is required to spend over ₹20 crore towards travel, accommodation and honorarium of former judges serving on the High Powered Election Committee and Supervisory Committees, and that these expenses are entirely funded by the legal fraternity without any government or external assistance.However, on Tuesday, the Supreme Court was informed that former judges appointed by it were being told that the BCI did not have sufficient funds to pay the honorarium being sought, prompting the bench’s response.