The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea challenging the requirement of depositing ₹1.25 lakh to contest Bar Council elections [Manish Jain & Anr. vs. Bar Council of India & Ors.]. .A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi observed that Bar Councils were already facing difficulties in arranging resources for elections.“They don’t have money to conduct the elections,” Justice Kant remarked..The petitioner's counsel today raised concern that it was unfair to link the eligibility to contest Bar elections with the amount of money one can afford to pay. The counsel also disagreed with the notion that Bar Councils have financial constraints in conducting the elections. He opposed the fixation of a sum like ₹1.25 lakh to shut out young advocates who might wish to contest within two or three years of joining the profession.The Court, however, pointed out that there was no "tearing hurry" for young professionals who cannot afford the fee to contest elections.“Let him (young lawyers) wait. There is no tearing hurry to contest elections,” Justice Kant said. .The counsel insisted that eligibility to contest elections should reflect the stature of a legal professional, not their financial capacity. He also pointed out that two High Courts were already examining the issue and that a reforms committee had recommended avoiding a system where only those with “deep pockets” could contest elections.The Bench, however, remained unmoved.“Then you go there (to the High Court),” Justice Kant told the lawyer.The counsel ultimately sought to withdraw the petition, which the Court dismissed as withdrawn..This development comes against the backdrop of continuing Supreme Court oversight of State Bar Council elections. On September 24, a Bench led by Justice Surya Kant directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to ensure that elections across States are completed by January 31, 2026, either simultaneously or in phases. The Court also said it would review the timeline depending on the BCI’s status report, which is due by October 31.The Court passed this order amid concerns over repeated delays in elections, with counsel pointing out that polls had not been held for more than two years in several States. At the time, the Court urged the BCI to act within a strict deadline, emphasising that members of the legal profession “would be waiting to participate" in these elections.
