##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH

AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

WRIT PETITION No.40596 of 2025

Date: 31.12.2025

Between:

B.Subash

….Petitioner

AND

Bar Council of India and another

….Respondents

ORDER

Heard Sri K.Sai Teja, learned counsel representing

Smt.Rohita Priyanka Banala, learned counsel for the petitioner;

Sri Aadesh Varma, learned Standing Counsel for Bar Council of

India appearing for respondent No.1; and Sri S.Ashok Anand

Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri J.Manikanta

Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Bar Council of Telangana

appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus

declaring Rule IV of the Bar Council of India (BCI), including the

Revised Election Eligibility Rules, 2023 (as amended), as

unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the

2

Constitution of India. The petitioner, a practising advocate,

specifically challenges the disqualification criteria based on the

pendency of serious criminal cases.

Contentions on behalf of the petitioner

3. The petitioner assails the constitutional validity of Rule IV

of BCI, which provides for disqualification of candidates on the

basis of pendency of criminal or disciplinary proceedings, on the

following grounds:

i. That Rule IV of BCI is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the

Constitution of India. It is urged that the impugned rule

undermines the well-settled principle of presumption of

innocence, which mandates that an individual is to be

treated as innocent until proven guilty by a competent

Court of law.

ii. That mere pendency of criminal or disciplinary proceedings,

particularly those pending within nine months prior to the

election, cannot constitute a valid ground for

disqualification. Specific challenge is laid to the 2025

amendment, which disqualifies a candidate if two or more

such proceedings are pending, on the ground that the same

is arbitrary, unreasonable, and constitutionally

impermissible.

iii. That the Advocates Act, 1961 do not confer any power upon

the BCI to prescribe disqualifications of the nature

3

contained in Rule IV of BCI. It is contended that the

impugned rule amounts to the BCI travelling beyond the

scope of the parent statute under the guise of delegated

legislation.

iv. The petitioner further points out an alleged disparity in

standards, contending that a substantial number of

Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative

Assemblies face pending criminal cases, yet are not

disqualified from contesting elections. It is argued that

advocates cannot be subjected to a more onerous and

restrictive standard that effectively denies them the right to

contest Bar Council elections.

v. That the 1st respondent failed to conduct elections to the

Bar Council of Telangana for a period exceeding five years

and is now invoking notions of “Ethical Standards” as a

pretext to introduce the impugned disqualification norms,

which is colorable exercise of power, lacking bona fides.

Contentions on behalf of the respondents

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and

the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent No.2

submit that the impugned rules are legally sustainable and

justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Their

submissions, in substance, are as follows:

4

i. That the impugned rules have been framed with the

object of improving the standards of the Bar Councils

and ensuring that only practicing advocates with

unblemished antecedents are elected to positions of

governance, thereby preserving the dignity, credibility

and integrity of the legal profession.

ii. That the authority to frame the impugned rules flows

from Sections 7(1) and 49 of the Advocates Act, 1961,

which empower the BCI to lay down standards of

professional conduct and to prescribe qualifications

and disqualifications for membership of Bar

Councils.

iii