Chhattisgarh High Court questions BCI Chairman's order to defer State Bar Council elections

The Chhattisgarh High Court on Friday questioned an order signed off by Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra to defer the election of office bearers to the Chhattisgarh State Bar Council and asked the BCI to explain the basis of such a decision [Chandra Prakash Jangade v. Bar Council of India & Others].

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma expressed a hope that the BCI will take all necessary and positive steps to ensure that the elections are conducted expeditiously in a fair and transparent manner, in the larger interest of the legal fraternity.

"Elections to statutory bodies form the backbone of democratic governance and cannot be lightly deferred, particularly when such elections are already overdue. Any decision to postpone elections must therefore be informed by transparency, fairness, and proportionality, and must be supported by tangible material rather than mere apprehensions or unverified information," the Court said.

The order was passed on a batch of petitions stating that the elections scheduled to be held on January 9 were deferred by the BCI Chairman by way of an order passed on January 6.

The order passed by the BCI Chairman mentioned that certain inputs had been received from multiple sources, suggesting that a few members were allegedly involved in corrupt practices, including horse-trading. Apprehensions were raised that such persons may get elected as office bearers by adopting corrupt, illegal and unethical means, thereby undermining the fairness and purity of the electoral process.

However, the petitioners before the Court argued that the order was founded solely on vague and unsubstantiated allegations couched as “inputs” and “rumours”, without disclosure of any concrete material or prima facie evidence indicating the commission of corrupt practices.

After examining the order, the Court opined that it prima facie reveals that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature.

"No specific instance, material, or identifiable act of malpractice has been referred to in the order so as to justify the extreme step of deferring a duly notified election process. While the objective of maintaining purity of elections is undoubtedly laudable, any interference with an ongoing or scheduled electoral process must rest on cogent material and demonstrable necessity," the Bench said.

It, thus, asked the BCI counsel to seek instructions within 48 hours and file an appropriate response explaining the basis for passing the order dated January 6.

The matter will be heard next on January 12.

Senior Advocate Fouzia Mirza with advocate Ali Afzaal Mirza and Ahmed Ayaan Mirza appeared in one of the petitions.

Advocates Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Anshul Tiwari and Awadh Tripathi also represented petitioners.

Advocate Dr. Sourabh Kumar Pande appeared for the BCI.

Additional Advocate General Shashahk Thakur appeared for the State.

Advocate Pranav Tiwari appeared for a private respondent.

[Read Order]