Honourable High Court of A.P. in M. Mohan Babu v. Government Of A.P. And Others on

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI AADESH VARMA, SC FOR BCI Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI S.ASHOK ANAND KUMAR, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. SRI J.MANIKANTA REDDY, SC FOR BCTG The Court made the following: ORDER IN THEHIGH COI,RT FOR THE STATE OFTEI,ANGANA AT HYDERABAI) TIIE IIONBLE TIIE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH XI'MAR SINGH A}ID THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIT'DDIN WRIT PETITIO N No.ulo596 of2025 Date: 31.12.2O25 Between: B.Subash Bar Council of India and another AND ORDER .. ..Petitioner ....Respondents Heard Sri K.Sai Teja, learned counsel representing Smt.Rohita Priyanka Banala, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Aadesh Varma, learned Standing Counsel for Bar Council of India appearing for respondent No. 1; and Sri S.Ashok Anand Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri J.Manikanta Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Bar Council of Telangana appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the record. 2. The present writ petition is hled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuarce of a writ of mandamus declaring Rule IV of the Bar Council of India (BCI), including the Revised Election Eligibiliry Rules, 2023 (as amended), as unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the I I 1 \ Constitution of India. The petitioner, a practising advocate, specificallv challenges the disqualification criteria based on the pendency of serious criminal cases. Contentions on behalf of the petitioner

3. The petitioner assails the constitutional validity of Rule IV of BCI, which provides for disqualihcation of candidates on the basis of pendency of criminal or disciplinary proceedings, on the following grounds: i. 'lhat Rule [V of BCI is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. lt is urged that the impugned rule undermines the well-settled principle of presumption of innocence, which mandates that an individual is to be treated as innocent until proven guilty by a competent Court of law. ii. That mere pendency of criminal or disciplinary proceedings, particularly those pending within nine months prior to the election, cannot constitute a valid ground for disqualification. Specific challenge is laid to the 2025 amendment, which disqualilies a candidate if two or more such proceedings are pending, on the ground that the same is arbitrar5r, unreasonable, and constitutionally impermissibie. iii. That the Advocates Act, 1961 do not confer any power upon the BCI to prescribe disqualif rcations of the nature r ,1 J contained in Rule IV of BCI. It is contended that the impugned rule amounts to the BCI travelling beyond the scope of the parent statute under the guise of delegated legislation. iv. The petitioner further points out an alleged disparity in standards, contending that a substantial number of Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies face pending criminal cases, yet are not disqualified from contesting eiections. It is argued that advocates cannot be subjected to a more onerous and restrictive standard that effectively denies them the right to contest Bar Council elections. v. That the l"t respondent failed to conduct elections to the Bar Council of Telangana for a period exceeding live years and is now invoking notions of "Ethical Standards" as a pretext to introduce the impugned disqualification norms, which is colorable exercise of power, Iacking bona fifles. Contentions on behalf of the respondents

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent No.2 submit that the impugned rules are legally sustainable and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Their submissions, in substance, are as follows: :E5 i l I l I That the impugned rules have been framed with the object of improving the standards of the Bar Councils and ensuring that only practicing advocates n'ith unblemished antecedents are elected to positions of governance, thereby preserving the dignity, credibility and intcgrity of tl-re legal profession.

11. That the authority to frame the impugned rules flows from Sections 7(1) and 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961, which empower the .BCI to lay down standards of professional conduct and to prescribe qualifications and disqualihcations for membership of Bar Councils.

111. That the impugned rules were placed before the Honble Supreme Court in M. Vardhan v. Union of Indla and. o,notherl and are being implemented in compliance with, and under the directions of, the Apex Court with a view to e nsuring a fair, transparent and ethically sound election process. lv. That the principle of presumption of innocence applicable in Criminal Jurisprudence does not preclude a professional regulatory body from prescribing reasonable eligibility and disqualification criteria in furtherance of maintaining institutional ' w.e.1C; No.t3ts of2023 dated 18.ti.2025 'I ) integrity and public conltdence in its governing bodies. v. That the Election notification itself provides for redressal of individual grievances through the High- Powered Election Committee (Phase-l) and the Supervisory Committee, whose decisions are intended to be final, thereby obviating the need for interference by this Court.

5. We have taken note of the respective contentions urged. Analysis and finding

6. It is pertinent to note that the challenge to Rule IV suffers from gross delay and laches. The BCI Revised Election Eligibility Rules were notihed in June, 2023 and were amended on 29s October, 2025 have remained in the public domain ever since. The petitioner has chosen to approach this Court only on

30.12.2025, and that too after the issuance of the Election Gazette Notification d,ated, 2O.72.2025 for the Bar Council of Teiangana. It is a well-settled principle that the "rules of the game" cannot be permitted to be challenged once the election process has commenced. The belated invocation of this Court's jurisdiction, after allowing the impugned rule to operate unchallenged for more than two years, is fatal to the maintainabiliry of the writ petition. 6 J\ 7, It is of signihcance that the elections to the State Bar Councils are being conducted strictly in terms of the directions issued by the Honble Supreme Court of lndia in M.Vardhan's case (supra 1). The Apex Court, in exercise of its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, has prescribed a structured and time-bound framework to ensure the conduct of elections within a stipulated period. The said directions also provide for the constitution of a High-Powered Committee to supervise the election process and to address election-related grievances. In view of the election being conducted under the direct supervision and control of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and within the timelines hxed by it, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the ongoing elcction process, particularly when a specialised ar-rd efficacious grievance-redressal mechanism before the High- Powered Committee is available to the petitioner.

8. Upon careful consideration, the precedents relied upon by the petitioner, are found to be inapplicable to the facts and issues arising in the present case. i. Baccarose PerJumes a. CBP pertains to the conduct of criminal investigations and the rights of an accused in the context of a criminal trial. The said decision does not deal with eligibilily criteria for elections to professional regulatory bodies, nor does it examine the statutory ' (1025) I SCC 384 7 authority of the BCI to prescribe standards aimed at maintaining ethical norms within the legal profession.

11. M. Mohan Babu u. Goaenrment oJ A.P.3 relates to the right to contest general elections governed by the Representation of the People Act. Elections to Bar Counciis stand on a distinct footing, the legal profession being a regulated and noble vocation governed by the Advocates Act, 1961, which vests the Bar Council of India with the authority to prescribe higher standards of conduct and eligibility for its elecled representatives to safeguard the integrity of the Bar.

111. Bar Council of Mahorashtra and Cioa v. Rajir; Nareshchandra Narulaa concerned disciplinary proceedings and the threshold of a pima facie case for initiation of such proceedings. The issues considered therein are clearly distinguishable, as the present writ petition challenges the validity of a rule framed in exercise of rule-making power governing eligibility in Bar Council elections, and not disciplinary action against an individual advocate. Therefore, the aforesaid decisions relied do not advance the case of the petitioner. 'zoot lry aLt zet 'C.a. 6 SLe lCiril) Nos.27606 of2023 and batch dated 24.09.2025 I I I \\ \ Conclusion

9. This Court hnds that the Bar Council of India is acting well within the ambit of its statutory authority under Sections 7 and 49 of the Advocates Act, 196 I , in framing rules intended to ensure that Lhe €lovernance of the Bar is entrusted to persons without serious criminal antecedents. The principle of presumption of innocence, which operates in the realm of criminal jurisprudence, does not fetter the power of a professional regulatory body to piescribe reasonable eligibility conditions in ordcr to safeguard the dignity, credibility and standards of the lcgal profession. 1(). It is also relevant to note that the elections to the Bar Councils are being conducted strictly in accordance with the timelines lrxed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and under the supervision of the Committee constituted pursuant to its directions.

11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has exclusively entrusted the conduct of elections and election-related grievance redressal to specially constituted Committees; the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy before such t* Committees; and any interference by this Court would amount to _-=7 ,/t 9 impermissible intrusion into the binding orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the ongoing election process. L2. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. closed. \ To, As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand //TRUE COPY/i SD/. K.MADHAVI ISTANT REGIS SECTION OFFICER

3. One CC to SMT ROHITHA PRIYANKA BANA vocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI AADESH VARMA, SC FOR BCI [OPUC] One CC to SRI J.MANIKANTA REDDY, SC FOR BCTG [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies BSR v' HIGH COURT DATED: 3111212025 I , ORDER WP.No.40596 of 2025 ,(\\c STAI€ () ? q JAl{ ?t16 I * a '\'f t DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS @ eI