A sharp drop in turnout for the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG) elections has reignited the debate over aggressive campaign calls, use of lawyers’ data and whether Bar politics itself is pushing advocates away from the ballot box..The turnout in the recent BCMG elections dropped below 50%, with provisional figures showing that only 91,849 of the 1,96,154 enrolled advocates cast their votes on March 24. This marks a fall from the approximately 61% turnout recorded in the 2018 elections.The low turnout was evident across major voting centres. For instance, at the Mumbai University booth, only 1,881 of the 19,272 registered voters participated. Similarly, the district court at Pune saw 7,412 voters out of 19,923.Elsewhere, the district courts at Nagpur, Nashik and Kolhapur saw 3,466 out of 7,977; 3,328 out of 5,558; and 2,298 out of 3,840. The Bombay Bar Association (High Court principal seat) saw 1,236 voters out of 4,313..According to BCMG Vice-Chairman Advocate Uday Warunjikar, several factors may have contributed to the low voter turnout.Firstly, he suggested that "voter fatigue" resulting from a large number of incessant recorded calls made by various candidates leading up to the campaign may have created a negative sentiment among Mumbai voters. He noted that he personally avoided using recorded calls or creating video 'reels' unlike most other candidates and argued that the model code of conduct might need revision to control such unnecessary communications.Secondly, he pointed to the inconvenience and cost associated with travelling to the centralised polling booths, especially in Mumbai, as a potential deterrent for advocates.Finally, Warunjikar cited confusion deliberately created by candidates whose nominations had been rejected. These candidates, he said, were "constantly spreading their SMS stating that the whole election process is vitiated," which may have lowered the overall turnout..While Warunjikar flagged campaign tactics and logistics, other BCMG members sought to clarify how candidates access voter information in the first place..BCMG member Sangram Desai, who was also a candidate in the election, insisted that the Bar Council itself does not leak phone numbers, though he acknowledged that candidates use various methods to create contact databases."The Bar Council is aware that such calls are made, but that data is not given by the Bar Council," Desai stated.He explained that any candidate can apply to the Council, pay ₹10,000 and receive a pendrive containing names and addresses of registered voters. However, mobile numbers are never disclosed, he specified. According to Desai, lawyers and local bar associations themselves prepare contact lists for district and taluka elections from members who voluntarily share phone numbers. Those lists are then reused or expanded during council elections.Desai personally favoured direct, on-ground outreach, using his own professional network built over the years through activities like travelling for lectures and mentoring junior lawyers. He maintained, "If some data has been leaked, the candidates will definitely have to take it up with the Bar Council.".For many lawyers, however, the bigger concern is how their personal data was used. Advocate Shubham Kahite said he was extremely frustrated by the incessant text messages and auto calls over three days before polling. “It is unprecedented in my experience and it is appalling that advocates are being targeted. The unauthorised use of data obtained from the Bar Council office without consent is a serious breach of privacy,” Kahite said. He said that using personal data for campaigning undermines the principles of the Bar and raises questions about the Council’s role in safeguarding members’ interests..Advocate Abhishek Salian said that once the election list was published, he received at least 70–80 calls. “It appears like after publishing the names, the list was circulated amongst everyone. People whom I had not spoken to for years also called. I was not told how they got my number and I think it is a serious breach of privacy,” he said. .Several lawyers also said that they received campaign letters at their homes and that last year’s verification exercise seemed like a way to collect updated contact information of advocates registered with the Bar Council.Their frustration echoes even on social media platforms like LinkedIn, where lawyers questioned how BCMG members got their contact information. Advocate Namrata Shah questioned, “What happened to all these ‘security measures’ BCMG claims to have to protect our data?”Advocate Rohan K mentioned how he kept receiving calls even though he stopped answering such calls. He said,“I got calls from personal mobile numbers of the associates attached to the candidates' office. Upon asking how they are aware of my name and contact details, they invariably would hang up.” .Advocate Shivang Jain replied that lawyers in Delhi have faced the same harassment and noted that a similar issue had reached the Delhi High Court. In February, the Delhi High Court pulled up the Bar Council of Delhi for publishing lawyers’ personal details in its voter list, leading to unsolicited campaign calls and WhatsApp messages and held that Bar bodies must protect advocates’ privacy..With debates on data protection and advocates’ privacy already before the Delhi High Court and parliament having enacted the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the BCMG figures and the experiences of its voters are likely to intensify scrutiny of how bar councils collect and use members’ data during elections.
