The representation submitted by Advocate Ulhas T. Naik to the High Powered Election Committee for the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa has raised shock to advocates like me who believes Bar Council as our parent authority and now it raises fundamental concerns about the integrity of the electoral process. His letter is not merely a candidate’s grievance but a clarion call to safeguard the credibility of one of the most important institutions of the legal fraternity.

Statutory Mandates Ignored

Naik points out that under Rules 8 and 8A of the Advocates Act, 1961, the tenure of elected members expired in 2024. The Bar Council of India may grant only a six-month extension, limited to enrolment verification. Yet, tenure-expired members allegedly continued to function, convene meetings, and even conduct disciplinary proceedings. Worse, an impermissible 18-month extension under Rule 32 is said to have been invoked—an action that directly contradicts the parent statute.

“Expired members cannot constitute or function as a Disciplinary Committee nor take decisions in disciplinary matters,” the representation reminds us. This is not a technicality; it is a matter of jurisdiction and legality.

Conflict of Interest and Code of Conduct

The Code of Conduct displayed at the Council premises is unsigned and allegedly issued by members whose tenure had already lapsed. The absence of transparency regarding the Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officers further compounds suspicion.

Naik rightly invokes the principle of “Nemo iudex in causa sua”—no one should be a judge in their own cause. If tenure-expired members continue disciplinary proceedings while also contesting elections, the conflict of interest is glaring. Such conduct may even amount to “corrupt practice” under Rule 19 of the Election Rules, inviting disqualification.

Judicial Findings and Alleged Misconduct

The Bombay High Court in An Advocate v. Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 163) recorded serious observations about the Council’s illegal conduct. Allegations of fabricated backdated orders and harassment of a woman advocate, if true, strike at the very root of the independence of the Bar.

Procedural Irregularities and Denial of Information

The Election Notification of 22 January 2026 was reportedly not widely disseminated, violating Rules 14 and 16 of the Election Rules. Transparency demands that such notices be prominently displayed and circulated.

Equally troubling is the denial of information under the RTI Act, 2005. Requests for audited accounts, committee constitution details, and expenditure reports were allegedly stonewalled. This undermines the fraternity’s right to informed participation.

Constructive Safeguards Proposed

Naik’s suggestions are pragmatic:

• Independent officers from the Collector’s office to oversee polling and counting.

• Verification of presiding officers’ signatures to prevent tampering.

• Sealing of ballot storage rooms in the presence of candidates.

• Advance notification of counting schedules.

These measures echo the Supreme Court’s 2018 observation that entrusting elections to the Election Commission may be the best way forward.

The Larger Principle

This representation is not an attack on individuals but a plea for institutional integrity. As Naik writes: “Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.”

The Bar Council is the apex body of advocates in Maharashtra and Goa. Its conduct must inspire confidence, not suspicion. If tenure-expired members are indeed functioning without jurisdiction, immediate corrective action is imperative.

Conclusion

The independence of the Bar is inseparable from the credibility of its institutions. The High Powered Election Committee must act decisively to ensure that the 2026 elections are conducted in a manner that is free, fair, impartial, and beyond reproach. Anything less would erode public trust and weaken the very foundation of justice.