Supreme Court objects to BCI denying honorarium to High Powered Committees monitoring State Bar elections

The Supreme Court today objected to the Bar Council of India denying the honorarium to the High Powered Election Monitoring Committees (HPEMCs) set up at regional levels and a pan-India High Powered Supervisory Committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia for supervising the State Bar Council elections 2026.

"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? Do they have their own aircraft?", CJI Surya Kant asked today.

Senior Advocate V Giri, told the bench today that honorarium must be befitting the status of the members of the Election Committee, who were previously High Court Chief Justices or Judges, but the Bar Council of India has said that it is too much and it may not be possible for them to do that.

Giri further suggested that former Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia be allowed to do the needful in that regard. Court was further told that Bar Council of India had constituted its own committee for the Rajasthan Bar Council elections on the pretext that Rajasthan was not mentioned in the order passed on November 18, 2024, whereby the committees were constituted.

The bench has called for a response from the BCI by tomorrow when the matter will be heard next.

In November last year the Supreme Court had fixed a revised, five-phase timetable for State Bar Council elections across 16 States and Union Territories, directing that the long-pending polls be completed between January 31 and April 30, 2026.

Under the revised plan, the State Bar Councils of Uttar Pradesh and Telangana will conclude elections by January 31, 2026. Andhra Pradesh, Delhi and Tripura must complete polls by February 28. Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Karnataka and Gujarat will finish by March 15. Meghalaya, Manipur and Maharashtra are slated for completion by March 31, and Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, Himachal Pradesh and Assam by April 30.

The Court also set uniform timelines for each phase, beginning with publication of electoral rolls, invitation of objections, final voter lists, nomination filing, scrutiny, withdrawal, polling under the preferential voting system and counting under HPEMC supervision. Acknowledging ongoing practical difficulties in verifying law degrees of thousands of registered advocates, the Court permitted those whose verification is pending to vote on a provisional basis, subject to “necessary consequences”. If a law degree is later found fake, not genuine or unrecognised, the individual will be barred from the electoral process.

The Bench noted that earlier verification exercises had exposed fake voters and even cases where individuals with criminal backgrounds had posed as lawyers. Emphasising that the verification mandate cannot stall elections, the Court said the process is akin to delimitation and cannot be used to delay polls. To streamline verification, the Court directed all universities, deemed universities and law universities to deploy special teams, including senior law faculty, to verify degrees within one week of receipt. Verification fees must follow existing rules, and no additional charges may be imposed merely because of the Court’s timeline.

The High Powered Supervisory Committee consists of a former Supreme Court judge, a former Chief Justice of a High Court and a senior advocate who does not contest Bar Council or Bar Association elections. Monitoring Committees comprise former High Court judges. Any grievance against an HPEMC’s decision may be taken to the Supervisory Committee, whose orders will be final. No civil court or High Court may entertain challenges to its decisions.

Mentioning Date: January 27, 2026

Bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Mahadevan and Justice Bagchi