Supreme Court Bar Associationv.BD Kaushik and Another

Legal Analysis: Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik and Another

Citation: 2026 INSC (forthcoming) – Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 13992/2023 and connected matters

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon'ble The Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Date of Decision: May 29, 2026

Nature of Order: Miscellaneous Application arising out of the final judgment and order dated 20.07.2012 in C.A. Nos. 3401-3402/2003 – directions issued for electoral and institutional reforms in the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).

Synopsis of the Order

The Supreme Court, while considering a Miscellaneous Application initially filed seeking relaxation in election rules due to COVID-19, expanded the scope to comprehensively reform the electoral process of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). A Committee headed by former Judge Justice L. Nageswara Rao was constituted to recommend reforms. Based on the Committee’s report and suggestions from the SCBA Executive Committee, the Election Committee, and members of the Bar, the Court issued binding directions under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution. The directions inter alia prescribe new eligibility criteria for voting (minimum appearances, relaxation for women and advocates with disabilities), eligibility for contesting various posts (President, Vice-President, Secretary, etc.), a refundable security deposit, increase in tenure of the Executive Committee from one to two years (effective 2027), a cooling-off period, reservation of posts for women and advocates with disabilities, a Model Code of Conduct with disqualification for inducement, and use of Electronic Voting Machines. The elections for 2026-2027 were directed to be held in the week beginning 24th August 2026.

1. Basic Information of the Order

Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. B.D. Kaushik and Another (with connected miscellaneous applications and diaries)

Citation: 2026 INSC (forthcoming)

Miscellaneous Application Diary No.: 13992/2023 and connected matters

Bench: Hon'ble The Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan

Date of Decision: May 29, 2026

Court: Supreme Court of India (Original/Civil Appellate Jurisdiction – Inherent Powers)

Nature of Proceedings: Miscellaneous Application seeking clarification/directions regarding SCBA elections, subsequently expanded to comprehensive reforms.

Impugned Order (background): Final judgment and order dated 20.07.2012 in C.A. Nos. 3401-3402/2003 (the third B.D. Kaushik judgment).

2. Legal Framework

Major Laws and Provisions Involved

• Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 141 (law declared by Supreme Court binding on all courts), Article 144 (civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of Supreme Court), Article 142 (power to do complete justice – invoked to issue directions for court-annexed Bar Association reforms).

• Supreme Court Bar Association Rules – Rule 5(c) (regular membership eligibility), Rule 18 (voting rights), Rule 35 (disqualification for unprofessional conduct).

• Prior Judgments of the Supreme Court – Supreme Court Bar Assn. v. B.D. Kaushik (2011) 13 SCC 774 (court-annexed Bar Associations constitute a separate class; right to vote can be restricted to regular practitioners); SCBA v. B.D. Kaushik (2012) 8 SCC 589 (implementation committee to identify eligible voters); SCBA v. B.D. Kaushik (2012) 6 SCC 152 (upheld mandate of Implementation Committee); *Re: Guidelines for Court Functioning Through Video Conferencing During Covid-19 Pandemic, Suo Motu W.P. (C) No. 5/2020* (virtual hearing guidelines, use of technology).

• Evidence Act, 1872 – Reference to electronic evidence and video conferencing in State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai.

Key Precedents Cited and Applied

• SCBA v. B.D. Kaushik (2011) 13 SCC 774 – Court-annexed Bar Associations are a separate class; they represent members regularly practising in the court; right to vote can be restricted to regular practitioners.

• State of Maharashtra v. Praful Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601 – Video conferencing is an advancement in technology; evidence recorded by video conferencing is as per procedure established by law.

• Re: Guidelines for Court Functioning Through Video Conferencing During Covid-19 Pandemic – Directions under Article 142 for virtual court functioning; technology enables access to justice.

3. Relevant Facts

The present Miscellaneous Application was initially filed seeking relaxation in the rules for participating in SCBA elections due to conditions prevailing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court, vide orders dated 08.05.2023 and 14.08.2023, broadened the scope and invited suggestions from members of the Bar for “laying down explicit guidelines for elections in the future” and “for further reforms in the election process of the Bar Association.”

On 24.02.2025, a Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao (former Judge of the Supreme Court) to recommend norms, guidelines and parameters for reformation and suitable amendments in the Bye-laws regulating elections of the Executive Committee of the SCBA. The Committee comprised Senior Advocates and experienced advocates from both AOR and non-AOR categories.

Pursuant to the same, Justice L. Nageswara Rao submitted a detailed report. Suggestions were also received from the SCBA Executive Committee, the 2025 Election Committee, and other members of the Bar. The Court considered the suggestions at length and issued final directions.

The Court noted that the rules of SCBA had not been suitably amended to incorporate the conditions cast by the earlier judgments of this Court (SCBA v. B.D. Kaushik, 2012) and continued to be disconnected from the directions of this Court, although elections were being held in conformity with the orders of the Court.

The Court also observed the paradigm shift brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, which accelerated technological adoption and virtual court functioning. This necessitated a relook at what it means to be a “regular practitioner” before the Supreme Court, as virtual appearances had become a permanent feature.

4. Issues

Issue No. 1: What eligibility criteria should be prescribed for members of the SCBA to vote in elections, taking into account virtual appearances and the changed practice environment post-COVID-19.

Issue No. 2: What eligibility criteria should be prescribed for members contesting various posts in the SCBA (President, Vice-President, Secretary, Joint Secretary, Treasurer, Executive Members).

Issue No. 3: What reforms are required in the tenure of the Executive Committee, reservation for women and advocates with disabilities, security deposit, Model Code of Conduct, and disqualification norms.

Issue No. 4: Whether the existing eligibility categories (chamber allotment, waitlisted for chamber, proximity card usage, amicus curiae panel, government counsel) should be retained or modified.

5. Ratio Decidendi (Key Directions)

The Court, after considering the report of Justice L. Nageswara Rao, the suggestions of the SCBA Executive Committee, the Election Committee, and members of the Bar, issued binding directions under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution. The directions are summarised below.

A. Incorporation of Judicial Directions (Para 20 – Issue I)

Judicial directions issued by this Court must be incorporated into the Rules of the SCBA in a time-bound manner. The existing rules are disconnected from the directions of this Court in the B.D. Kaushik cases.

B. Eligibility for Voting – Members (Para 20 – Issue II)

• Advocates with 50 appearances in the Supreme Court in the preceding two years will be eligible.

• Female advocates with 30 appearances in the preceding two years will be eligible.

• Advocates with disabilities with 5 appearances in the preceding two years will be eligible.

• 75% of such appearances must be physical, while 25% may be virtual.

• Appearances shall be proved from the Record of Proceedings and may also be proved through court orders.

• Virtual appearances must be marked separately from physical appearances, and the portal must be amended accordingly.

• Proximity card entries are to be treated as corroborative; eligibility cannot be determined solely on the basis of proximity card entries.

C. Advocate-on-Record (AOR) – Eligibility to Vote (Para 20)

• AORs with an average of 20 filings per year in the preceding two years will be eligible.

• AORs with disabilities with an average of 5 filings per year in the preceding two years will be eligible.

D. Mediators – Eligibility to Vote (Para 20)

• Non-AOR members on the panel of mediators in the Supreme Court Mediation Centre, for two years with 20 mediation cases in two years shall be eligible.

• Non-AOR members with disabilities on the mediator panel, for two years with 5 mediation cases in two years shall be eligible.

E. Veteran Members – Eligibility to Vote (Para 20)

• Veteran members holding SCBA membership for more than 25 years will be eligible.

• Veteran members with more than 25 years of membership will be eligible to contest only if they have voted at least once in the immediately preceding 5 years.

F. Categories Removed as Eligibility Criteria (Para 20)

The following categories shall not be eligibility criteria for voting:

• Chamber allotment in the Supreme Court

• Being waitlisted for chamber allotment

• Government counsel (Fifty appearances in preceding three years)

• Use of proximity card for 60 days in the preceding year (may be used only as corroborative)

• Empanelment of Non-AOR members on the Amicus Curiae panel of the Supreme Court for preceding two years

G. Senior Advocates – Eligibility to Vote (Para 20)

Senior Advocates residing in NCR (Delhi, Gurugram, Noida, Faridabad, Ghaziabad), including Senior Advocates designated by the Supreme Court, will be eligible.

H. Eligibility to Contest Elections – General (Para 20)

A member must have a minimum of five years permanent membership of SCBA for contesting for any post.

I. Eligibility for Specific Posts (Para 20)

President:

• A member contesting for the post of President must have 10 lead appearances in reported judgments in the preceding 10 years in the Supreme Court.

• Alternatively, 25 lead appearances in reported judgments in the preceding 20 years in the Supreme Court.

Vice President:

• A member contesting for the post of Vice President must have 10 lead appearances in reported judgments in the preceding 10 years in the Supreme Court.

Secretary:

• 50 appearances in the Supreme Court in the preceding two years (general category).

• 30 appearances for female members.

• 5 appearances for members with disabilities.

Joint Secretary / Treasurer / Joint Treasurer:

• 40 appearances in the preceding two years (general category).

• 25 appearances for female members.

• 5 appearances for members with disabilities.

Senior Executive Members and Executive Members:

• 50 appearances in the preceding two years (general category).

• 30 appearances for female members.

• 5 appearances for members with disabilities.

J. Security Deposit (Para 20)

The proposal for refundable security deposit stands accepted in terms of the order dated 09.05.2025. Candidates must make the refundable security deposit along with nomination fee. The security deposit would be refunded to all those who have received 15% or more of the valid votes.

K. Tenure of Executive Committee and Cooling-off Period (Para 20)

• The tenure of the Executive Committee shall stand increased from 1 to 2 years, effective from 2027.

• A cooling-off period of 1 term shall be applied after each term.

L. Reservation for Women and Advocates with Disabilities (Para 20)

• The Supreme Court may, on an annual basis, further reserve for women such additional posts as it may direct, but other than the post of President.

• Posts may be reserved for advocates with disabilities as the Court may, by order, direct in a given year, but other than the post of President.

M. Disqualification and Model Code of Conduct (Para 20)

• A “Model Code of Conduct” should contain a categorical disqualification for providing inducement in any form, cash or kind, in lieu of votes.

• A candidate found to have provided inducements must be disqualified from contesting the present election and the next election also.

• Mobile phones must not be permitted in the polling booth.

• A person convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment or barred from practice by the Bar Council is prohibited from contesting elections.

• Such other disqualifications as ceiling on expenditure may be introduced.

• Such Model Code of Conduct must be strictly implemented.

N. Technology and EVMs (Para 20 – implicit)

The Court noted the suggestion for conducting polling through electronic voting machines (EVMs) to eliminate the cumbersome paper ballot process. The direction implies acceptance of EVMs for future elections.

O. Other Directions (Paras 21-23)

• The Court placed on record its gratitude to Justice L. Nageswara Rao, the SCBA Executive Committee, the Election Committee, and all members of the Bar.

• To give effect to most reforms in the ensuing elections itself (other than the two-year tenure reform, which will apply from 2027), the Court granted one month more time for conducting the elections.

• Elections for 2026-2027 shall be held in the week beginning 24th August 2026.

6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

• The Supreme Court, in exercise of its inherent powers and under Article 142 read with Articles 141 and 144, can issue binding directions for the conduct of elections of a court-annexed Bar Association to ensure transparency, accountability, and adherence to the rule of law.

• Eligibility to vote in court-annexed Bar Association elections must be linked to “regular practice” before the court, which can be measured through appearances (physical and virtual) and filings, with relaxed norms for women and advocates with disabilities.

• Virtual appearances, which became a permanent feature of court functioning post-COVID-19, must be counted towards eligibility on a rational basis (25% of required appearances may be virtual).

• The tenure of the Executive Committee of the SCBA is enhanced to two years to ensure meaningful reforms and reduce the logistical burden of annual elections, with a cooling-off period to prevent concentration of power.

• A refundable security deposit with a threshold of 15% of valid votes for refund encourages serious candidates and discourages frivolous contestation.

• Model Code of Conduct with express disqualification for inducement is mandatory; mobile phones are banned in polling booths to prevent malpractice.

7. Court’s Examination and Analysis

The Court began by emphasising that the Bench and the Bar are “two wheels of a chariot” bound by a shared responsibility to preserve the integrity of the justice delivery system. Meaningful reform in Bar elections is essential to ensure transparency, accountability, and continued faith of litigants.

The Court traced the history of litigation in SCBA v. B.D. Kaushik, noting that the rules of SCBA had not been amended to incorporate the judicial directions despite elections being held in conformity with Court orders. The Court observed that the COVID-19 pandemic had accelerated technological adoption, leading to virtual court functioning, which necessitated a relook at what it means to be a “regular practitioner.”

The Court considered the detailed report of Justice L. Nageswara Rao, who recommended that judicial directions must be incorporated into the rules, that eligibility criteria should be based on appearances and filings, and that certain categories (chamber allotment, amicus panel, government counsel) should be removed as they do not imply regular practice. The Committee also recommended a two-year tenure for the Executive Committee and a cooling-off period.

The SCBA Executive Committee and the Election Committee submitted their suggestions, and the Court also received inputs from members of the Bar. After considering all suggestions, the Court issued the final directions as summarised above.

The Court expressed gratitude to Justice L. Nageswara Rao and all stakeholders for their cooperation. The Court directed that most reforms be implemented in the ensuing elections (2026-2027) itself, except the two-year tenure which will take effect from 2027. The elections were directed to be held in the week beginning 24th August 2026.

8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The order is a landmark reform of the electoral process of the Supreme Court Bar Association, one of the most premier Bar Associations in the country. It brings much-needed clarity, transparency, and objectivity to the eligibility criteria for voting and contesting. The recognition of virtual appearances as part of “regular practice” is a realistic and progressive step that aligns with the post-pandemic reality of court functioning. The relaxation of appearance norms for women and advocates with disabilities promotes inclusivity. The removal of vague categories (chamber allotment, amicus panel, government counsel) that did not necessarily indicate regular practice is a significant improvement. The two-year tenure and cooling-off period will allow elected bodies to have a meaningful impact while preventing concentration of power. The Model Code of Conduct with disqualification for inducement addresses long-standing concerns about electoral malpractices in Bar elections.

Potential concerns: The eligibility criteria (50 appearances in two years for general members, 30 for women, 5 for disabled) may be considered high by some members, particularly those who appear before the Court less frequently but are nevertheless active practitioners. However, the Court has provided a balanced approach by including veteran members (25+ years membership) as eligible without appearance requirements. The 75% physical appearance requirement may be difficult to verify, but the Court has provided that appearances can be proved from the Record of Proceedings and court orders. The implementation of these reforms will require significant coordination between the SCBA, the Registry, and the Election Committee. The order does not specify the consequences of non-compliance by the SCBA Executive Committee.

Practical impact: This judgment will serve as a template for reforms in other court-annexed Bar Associations across the country (High Courts and District Courts). It will ensure that only members who are genuinely and regularly practicing before the court have a say in the governance of the Bar Association. The reforms will reduce electoral malpractices, increase participation of women and persons with disabilities, and bring stability to the leadership of Bar Associations.

9. Final Outcome

The Miscellaneous Application and connected matters were disposed of with binding directions under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution.

• The Court issued comprehensive directions on eligibility for voting, eligibility for contesting various posts, security deposit, tenure of Executive Committee, cooling-off period, reservation for women and advocates with disabilities, Model Code of Conduct, disqualifications, and use of EVMs.

• The directions are summarised in paragraph 20 of the order (as reproduced in the analysis).

• Elections for the year 2026-2027 shall be held in the week beginning 24th August 2026.

• The tenure of the Executive Committee shall be increased from 1 to 2 years effective from 2027.

• All judicial directions issued by this Court must be incorporated into the Rules of the SCBA in a time-bound manner.

• The Court placed on record its gratitude to Justice L. Nageswara Rao, the SCBA Executive Committee, the Election Committee, and all members of the Bar for their valuable suggestions.

10. Practical Application

For members of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA): Understand the new eligibility criteria for voting. If you are an advocate (non-AOR), you need 50 appearances in the preceding two years (30 for women, 5 for disabled). If you are an AOR, you need 20 filings per year on average in the preceding two years (5 for disabled). Virtual appearances count for 25% of the required appearances. Keep a record of your appearances from the Record of Proceedings or court orders. Proximity card entries are only corroborative. If you are a veteran member (25+ years membership), you are eligible to vote without appearance requirements. If you wish to contest elections, ensure you meet the specific criteria for the post (e.g., President requires 10 lead appearances in reported judgments in preceding 10 years or 25 in preceding 20 years). You must also have five years of permanent membership.

For the SCBA Executive Committee and Election Committee: Immediately update the SCBA Rules to incorporate all judicial directions. Amend the online portal to capture virtual appearances separately from physical appearances. Implement the refundable security deposit mechanism as per the order dated 09.05.2025. Arrange for elections to be held in the week beginning 24th August 2026. Use Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) to streamline the process. Enforce the Model Code of Conduct strictly, including the ban on mobile phones in polling booths and disqualification for inducement. Communicate the new eligibility criteria to all members well in advance.

For advocates with disabilities: You have relaxed eligibility norms (5 appearances for voting, 5 appearances for contesting most posts, 5 mediations for mediator eligibility). Ensure that you register your disability with the SCBA or provide appropriate certification to avail of these relaxations. The SCBA must provide necessary facilities to enable your participation in elections.

For female advocates: You have relaxed appearance norms (30 appearances for voting, 30 for contesting Secretary, 25 for Joint Secretary/Treasurer, 30 for Executive Member). The Court has also provided that additional posts may be reserved for women by annual order of the Supreme Court (other than President). Actively participate in the electoral process.

For the Supreme Court Registry: Assist the SCBA in verifying appearances from the Record of Proceedings. Provide necessary data and technical support for the online portal to capture virtual appearances. Ensure that the proximity card system is maintained as a corroborative tool but not the sole basis for eligibility.

For other High Courts and court-annexed Bar Associations: This order provides a model for electoral reforms. Consider adopting similar eligibility criteria based on appearances/filings, two-year tenure, cooling-off period, reservation for women and disabled, and a Model Code of Conduct with disqualification for inducement.

11.  Court Lines

Line 1 (Bench and Bar – Para 3):
“The Bench and the Bar are two wheels of a chariot, bound by a shared responsibility to preserve the integrity of the justice delivery system. One cannot function without the other. An independent and a fearless judiciary requires a vibrant, ethical, and a responsible Bar.”

Line 2 (Need for reforms – Para 17):
“The norms, eligibility conditions, membership, membership fee structure etc., cannot remain static for decades and timely reforms to meet with the challenges that may confront the institution from time to time, are required to be carried out.”

Line 3 (Virtual appearances counted – Para 20, Issue II):
“75% of such appearances must be physical, while 25% of appearances may be virtual. Appearances shall be proved from the Record of Proceedings, and may also be proved through court orders. Virtual appearances have to be marked separately from physical appearance, and must be indicated separately in the portal.”

Line 4 (Proximity card not determinative – Para 20, Issue IX):
“Use of proximity card for 60 days in the preceding year shall not in itself be an eligibility criterion, but may only be used as corroborative to the criterion of minimum appearances. The primary proof of appearances shall be appearances recorded in the Record of Proceedings and Court orders.”

Line 5 (Tenure increase – Para 20, Issue XIX):
“The tenure of the Executive Committee shall stand increased from 1 to 2 years, effective from 2027. Further, a cooling-off period of 1 term shall be applied after each term.”

Line 6 (Model Code of Conduct – Para 20, Issue XXI):
“‘Model Code of Conduct’ should contain a categorical disqualification for providing inducement in any form, cash or kind, in lieu of votes. A candidate found to have provided inducements must not only be disqualified from contesting the present election but the next election also.”

Line 7 (Election date – Para 23):
“Elections for 2026-2027 shall be held in the week beginning 24th August, 2026.”

12. Legal Strategy Insight

For a member of SCBA seeking to vote in elections: Keep a personal record of your appearances (physical and virtual) with dates and case numbers. After each hearing, obtain a copy of the Record of Proceedings or the court order where your appearance is recorded. This will be your primary proof. If you are a woman or a person with disability, ensure that the SCBA has your correct gender/disability status on record to avail of the relaxed norms. If you have been a member for more than 25 years, you are eligible without appearance requirements – but you must have voted at least once in the immediately preceding 5 years to contest elections.

For a member intending to contest elections: First, confirm that you have five years of permanent membership. For the post of President, build a track record of lead appearances in reported judgments. Keep a compilation of judgments where you appeared as lead counsel. For Secretary and other posts, maintain a log of appearances (50 in two years for Secretary, 40 for Joint Secretary/Treasurer, 50 for Executive Member). If you are a woman or disabled, you have lower thresholds. Be prepared to pay a refundable security deposit along with the nomination fee. The deposit will be refunded only if you receive 15% or more of valid votes. Comply strictly with the Model Code of Conduct – do not offer any inducement.

For the SCBA Election Committee: Immediately after the Court’s order, issue a public notice with the new eligibility criteria and the election schedule (week beginning 24th August 2026). Set up a mechanism to verify appearances from the Record of Proceedings and court orders. Coordinate with the Supreme Court Registry to access data. Designate a portal where members can upload their appearance/filing proof. Ensure that virtual appearances are separately recorded. Procure EVMs for polling. Implement the refundable security deposit mechanism. Publish the Model Code of Conduct and enforce it strictly. Ban mobile phones in polling booths.

For a lawyer seeking to challenge the eligibility of a candidate or voter: If you believe a person is not eligible, file a complaint before the Election Committee with evidence. If the candidate has provided inducement, document the inducement (e.g., messages, witnesses, bank records). The Election Committee must disqualify such candidate and also ban them from the next election. If the Election Committee fails to act, approach the Supreme Court in the pending proceedings.

For the Supreme Court Registry: Develop a software module that automatically calculates the number of appearances (physical and virtual) of each advocate from the Record of Proceedings. Share this data with the SCBA Election Committee. Ensure that virtual appearances are flagged distinctly. This will reduce disputes and manual verification.

For a person with a disability seeking to avail relaxed norms: Obtain a disability certificate from a competent medical authority. Submit it to the SCBA for verification. Once verified, the relaxed norms (5 appearances for voting, 5 for contesting most posts) will apply. If the SCBA denies you the benefit, file a representation before the Court.