Supreme Court Creates Two Bar Council Election Tribunals: Justice Deepak Gupta, Justice Hima Kohli to Head

The Supreme Court of India on May 18, 2026, directed the Bar Council of India to constitute two election tribunals to adjudicate disputes arising from state bar council elections across the country. The bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi appointed former Supreme Court Judge Justice Deepak Gupta to head Tribunal I and former Supreme Court Judge Justice Hima Kohli to head Tribunal II. The BCI has been given three days to formally notify the constitution of both tribunals. This order addresses longstanding delays in resolving bar council election disputes that have undermined democratic governance within the legal profession.

Why the Supreme Court Intervened in Bar Council Elections

State bar council elections have been plagued by litigation for years, with disputes over voter rolls, eligibility of candidates, and procedural irregularities frequently ending up in various High Courts. The absence of a centralised, specialised tribunal meant that election challenges were heard in different forums with inconsistent outcomes. Several state bar councils had elections pending for years due to unresolved legal challenges, leaving them governed by nominated committees rather than elected bodies. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of the systemic problem after multiple bar associations petitioned for intervention, arguing that the delay in resolving election disputes was eroding the democratic character of the bar council system established under the Advocates Act, 1961.

Structure of the Two Election Tribunals

The Court has divided the pending election disputes geographically between the two tribunals. Tribunal I, headed by Justice Deepak Gupta (retired), will handle election disputes from states in North and East India. Tribunal II, headed by Justice Hima Kohli (retired), will handle disputes from states in West and South India. Both tribunals will function as quasi-judicial bodies with the power to summon records, examine witnesses, and pass binding orders. The BCI has been directed to provide adequate infrastructure, staffing, and financial support to both tribunals within 15 days of notification. Each tribunal will have the authority to decide disputes related to voter rolls, nomination processes, counting procedures, and post-election challenges. The Court emphasised that tribunal proceedings should be completed expeditiously, ideally within 90 days of each case being listed.

Legal Basis Under the Advocates Act 1961

The Advocates Act, 1961, governs the constitution and functioning of state bar councils and the Bar Council of India. Section 8 of the Act deals with the election of members to state bar councils, while the Bar Council of India (Election) Rules provide the procedural framework for conducting these elections. The Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to constitute these tribunals, noting that the existing statutory framework did not provide for a dedicated dispute resolution mechanism for bar council elections. The Court observed that while High Courts had jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain election challenges, the multiplicity of forums and inconsistent approaches warranted a specialised mechanism. The order also directed that all pending election disputes in various High Courts shall stand transferred to the appropriate tribunal based on geographic jurisdiction.

Impact on Pending State Bar Council Elections

Several state bar councils currently have elections that are either overdue or stayed by court orders. The creation of dedicated tribunals is expected to clear the backlog of election disputes and enable fresh elections in states where they have been held up. State bar councils in Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal have particularly large numbers of pending disputes. The resolution of these disputes will restore elected leadership to bar councils that have been functioning under nominated or ad hoc committees. For individual advocates, this means a return to democratic participation in the governance of their professional bodies. The tribunals are also expected to develop consistent jurisprudence on recurring issues such as eligibility criteria for candidates, the validity of proxy voting, and the treatment of enrolled advocates who have not paid their annual fees.

Key Takeaways for the Legal Profession

The Supreme Court's order marks a significant step toward professionalising the resolution of bar council election disputes. First, the appointment of two former Supreme Court judges ensures that tribunal decisions carry substantial judicial authority and credibility. Second, the geographic division between the two tribunals distributes the caseload efficiently and ensures that advocates from different regions have accessible forums. Third, the three-day deadline for BCI notification and the 90-day target for dispute resolution signal the Court's intent to ensure swift action. Fourth, the transfer of pending High Court cases consolidates all election litigation under specialised tribunals, reducing forum shopping and conflicting orders. Advocates with pending election disputes should monitor the BCI's notification for details on filing procedures, and state bar councils should prepare to cooperate with the tribunals by providing election records and documentation as required.