Advocate Files Writ Petition Against Bar Council's Election Deposit in Bombay High Court
An advocate from Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar has initiated a significant legal challenge by filing a writ petition before the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court. The petition contests the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa's (BCMG) election notification issued on January 22, which mandates a non-refundable deposit of Rs 1.25 lakh for advocates seeking to contest in the council's upcoming election scheduled for March 24.
Petition Seeks Quashing of Deposit and Reservation for Marginalized Groups
Advocate Shirish Kamble, the petitioner, has requested the court to quash and set aside the prescribed deposit, labeling it as "illegal, arbitrary, exclusionary, and violative of provisions under the Constitution of India." In addition to this, Kamble has prayed for the implementation of effective and enforceable vertical reservations for OBC, SC, and ST advocates in the BCMG election process. The petition, registered on February 9, is slated for a hearing on February 13, according to the high court's official website.
Kamble has also submitted an objection with the BCMG office in Mumbai, urging a reduction in the deposit amount. He argues that the insistence on Rs 1.25 lakh is legally unsustainable, citing a precedent where the Amravati bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, on January 5, 2026, quashed similar proceedings by the Bar Council of India (BCI) that aimed to raise the deposit from Rs 30,000 to Rs 1.25 lakh for state Bar council elections.
Bar Council Defends Deposit Based on Supreme Court Directives
In response, BCMG chairman Harshad Nimbalkar stated that the election is being conducted in accordance with a Supreme Court directive for phase-wise elections of all state Bar councils. He emphasized that the Rs 1.25 lakh non-refundable security deposit was decided by the BCI for all state Bar council elections and has been ratified by the Supreme Court in a recent decision led by the Chief Justice of India.
On February 5, the Supreme Court allowed petitions by the BCI to transfer multiple cases on this issue from various high courts to the apex court. The court noted that the fee was levied on a pan-India basis to cover the total expenditure likely to be incurred by each State Bar Council, especially given the precarious financial conditions of several councils due to reduced registration fees following the Gaurav Kumar vs Union of India judgment of July 30, 2024.
Supreme Court's Rationale on Election Expenditure
The Supreme Court bench elaborated that contesting an election is an optional choice for Bar members. Without a reasonable fee for election expenditure, costs would be passed on to all members, including those not interested in participating as candidates. This burden would disproportionately affect young lawyers early in their careers. The bench approved the BCI's decision to recover such expenditure from candidates, stating that serious contenders should bear the costs of their election campaigns.
Concluding its decision, the Supreme Court expressed that there is no necessity for any high court to interfere in the fee structure prescribed for state Bar council elections. All relevant cases pending before different high courts were taken on board and dismissed, reinforcing the BCI's stance on the deposit requirement.
