Decisions made by the Election Committee in Bar Council elections are final and not subject to review by civil courts or High Courts.

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR W.P.No.11373 of 2026 J.F.Arthur Joy Prakash .. Petitioner Vs.

1. The Returning Officer Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104.

2. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Rep. By its Secretary High Court Campus Chennai – 600 104.

3. The High Powered Election Committee Bar Council Election – 2026 High Court Campus, Chennai – 600 104. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the rejection of the petitioner's nomination through in RO Proceedings No.2 of 2026 dated 09.03.2026 for contesting the election to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry – 2026, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to contest in the said election scheduled to be held on

30.03.2026.

For the Petitioner : Mr.A.Kalaiselvan For the Respondents : Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar Standing Counsel for R2 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records relating to the rejection of the petitioner's nomination through the RO Proceedings No.2 of 2026 dated 09.03.2026 for contesting in the elections of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, 2026.

2. We have heard Mr.A.Kalaiselvan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.K.Chandrasekar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent 2.

3. At the outset, we have already indicated the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that this writ petition is not maintainable in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Varadhan Vs. Union of India & Anr., W.P. (Civil) No.1319 of 2023; Dated: 18.11.2025. Despite that, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that, if any illegal order is passed by the Committee, the writ petition is entertainable by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. We are afraid of this proposition in view of the clear direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Varadhan (cited supra), especially in paragraph 20, which reads thus:-

“20. Any person who is aggrieved by the decision of the High-Powered Election Committee shall be at liberty to approach the High-Powered Supervisory Committee. The decision taken by the Supervisory Committee shall be final. No civil court or High Court shall entertain any petition(s)

against such decision.”

5. If any orders passed by the Election Committee or the Returning Officer of the State Bar Council, as the Special Election Commission has been nominated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court through the judicial order referred to above in respect of these kind of Bar Council Elections and such Committee has already been constituted in respect of conducting the forthcoming election for the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, which is set to be conducted on 30.03.2026, any orders passed either by the Returning Officer or the Committee, on its own, cannot be questioned before any Court of Law, i.e., before both Civil Courts as well as High Courts concerned.

6. In that view of the matter, we do not wish to entertain this writ petition, as our jurisdiction is restricted by the judicial order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order cited supra. Resultantly, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is rejected and thereby, as this writ petition is not maintainable in view of the aforesaid, it is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. However, there shall be n