![](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/d515a3_f4ac4d7b133149e9b7279d836b198a5b~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_624,h_416,al_c,q_85,enc_auto/d515a3_f4ac4d7b133149e9b7279d836b198a5b~mv2.png)
On August 21, 2024, the Supreme Court of India issued a significant directive aimed at reforming the functioning of Bar Associations across the country. The Court, led by Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, emphasized the need for comprehensive guidelines or parameters to be established for these associations to enhance their effectiveness and ensure their proper functioning. This directive emerged from a Special Leave Petition (SLP) concerning the institutional strength of Bar Associations, specifically SLP(C) No. 3950/2024.
The Supreme Court's bench clarified that this matter is not adversarial litigation but a long-term investment in improving the judicial system. The Justices urged the involved parties to provide suggestions for addressing issues related to the functioning of Bar Associations. To facilitate this, the Court appointed Advocate Vipin Nair, President of the Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association (SCAORA), as the nodal counsel. Nair is tasked with soliciting and compiling suggestions from all Bar Associations within a four-week period. These suggestions will then be circulated as per the Court's instructions.
The case originally involved allegations of discrimination and elitism against the Madras Bar Association, REEDLAW 2021 SC 07537. However, with the petitioners expressing a willingness to withdraw their allegations, the focus of the Court shifted to examining broader issues related to Bar Associations' operations. Senior Advocate S Prabhakaran, representing the Bar Council of India (BCI), indicated that notices have been sent to Bar Associations nationwide, highlighting the need to address various grievances. Justice Kant, however, emphasized that the Court is solely focused on implementing reforms rather than resolving individual grievances.
The Supreme Court raised several critical questions regarding the criteria for admitting members to various levels of Bar Associations and whether these criteria should be uniform or varied. Concerns were also voiced about the financial aspects of Bar Association elections and the complaints surrounding these processes. The Court suggested the possibility of establishing an independent regulatory body to oversee these elections and improve transparency.
Furthermore, Advocate Nair highlighted the lack of basic infrastructural facilities for Bar members, which the Court acknowledged as an important issue. The Court agreed to consider suggestions for improving these facilities and proposed that a nodal officer be appointed to manage the compilation of suggestions.
The Court ordered that the SCAORA collect and circulate suggestions from Bar Associations and that the Bar Council of India ensure the collection of feedback from state Bar councils. The registry was instructed to publish a notice on the Court's website to inform all High Courts and District Bar Associations of the requirement to submit their suggestions. The matter is scheduled for further hearing in October, marking the next step in the Court’s effort to implement meaningful reforms in the functioning of Bar Associations across India.
Comments