The abrupt increase of the nomination fee for elections to Rs.1,25,000 without following due legal process violates democratic principles and is deemed arbitrary and unconstitutional.

ORDER :

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J.

Heard Sri M.V. Raja Ram, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in W.P.No.29216 of 2025, Sri T. Singaiah Goud, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Yasaswi Law Associates LLP in W.P.No.30019 of 2025, Sri M. Solomon Raju, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.30063 of 2025, Sri G. Venkata Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2.

2. The prayers in W.P.No.29216 and 30019 of 2025 are identical. Therefore, the Prayer in W.P.No.29216 of 2025 is usefully extracted hereunder:

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 1^st Respondent in fixing a non-refundable nomination fee of Rs.1,25,000/ for filing nominations to contest in the elections of the State Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, vide communication dated 25-09-2025, as illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India; and consequentially direct the Respondents to conduct elections to the Andhra Pradesh State Bar Council strictly in accordance with the ADVOCATES ACT , 1961, and the existing State Bar Council Election Rules, without imposing the impugned increased fee, in the interests of justice and to pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. Insofar as the W.P.No.30063 of 2025 is concerned, the Writ Petitioner has sought multiple prayers in addition to the above prayer and therefore, the main Prayer in the W.P.No.30065 of 2025 are also usefully extracted hereunder:

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue

a) an appropriate writ, order or a direction more particularly) one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the notification Ref.BCI.D. 6880/2025 (Council- STBCs) dated 25.09.2025 issued by the 1^st respondent in fixing the Nomination Deposit as Rs.1,25,000/- without any consultation with the 2^nd respondent and contrary to section 49(h) of ADVOCATES ACT , 1961 and Rule 6 of Bar Council of AP Bar Council Election Rules, 1973, as illegal, irregular, irrational, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently suspend the notification Ref.BCI:D:6880/2025(Council-STBCs) dated 25.09.2025 issued by the 1^st respondent in fixing the nomination deposit of Rs.1,25,000/- to contest in 2^nd respondent Bar Council Elections and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

b) an appropriate writ, order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to set out eligibility criteria for the Contesting Candidates and to ensure adequate representation to Women, SC, ST and BC Advocates to achieve equitable representation and social justice for all section of Advocates, pending the writ petition and pass such other order or orders that may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. The common issue arising in W.P.No.29216 of 2025 and the other two Writ Petitions is the challenge to the Proceedings of the Principal Secretary, Bar Council of India dated 25.09.2025 (Ex.P.1 in W.P.No.29216 of 2025). For the sake of convenience, the facts, as portrayed in W.P.No.29216 of 2025 are referred to in this Common Order.

The facts as submitted by the Writ Petitioner in W.P.No.29216 of 2025:

5. It is submitted that a Writ Petition (Civil) No.1319/2023 is filed before the Hon’ble Apex Co