The court held that once election results are published under the Advocates Act, 1961, the tenure of elected members commences, and the inclusion of non-elected persons in a governing interim authority infringes the democratic scheme of the statute and constitutes non-application of mind.

ORDER

Admit.

2. I have heard Sri.Anison M.R., learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.25168 of 2026 and Sri.Yeshwanth Shenoy, party-in-person in W.P.(C) No.26232 of 2026. W.P.(C) No.25168 of 2026 is treated as the leading case and the parties and the exhibits referred to are those in the said writ petition. I have also heard Sri.Rajit, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, Sri.P.Ramakrishnan, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, Smt.Laya Mary Joseph, learned Government Pleader on behalf of the third respondent and Sri.Sreekumar Chelur, learned counsel on behalf of the fourth respondent.

3. Petitioners in both these writ petitions challenge Ext.P6 order issued by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India dated 30.06.2026. As per the impugned order, a limited interim authority consisting of the learned Advocate General, and respondents 4, 5 and 6 were constituted for enrolment and other specified activities. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.25168 of 2026 are practising Advocates while the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26232 of 2026 is the elected member of the Bar Council. The main challenge is on the inclusion of the 4th respondent in the said authority.

4. The 4th respondent is admittedly not a member of the Bar Council of Kerala and had also not even contested in the recently concluded elections. He was, of course, the immediate former Chairman of the Bar Council of Kerala.

5. The elections to the Bar Council of Kerala (for short ‘the BCK’), took place during April, 2026 and the results were declared and published in the Gazette as per Ext.P4, on 16.06.2026. Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961 stipulates that the term of office of a Bar Council member commences from the date of declaration of results. Thus the members of BCK, mentioned in Ext.P4, have by force of law, commenced their term of office from 16.06.2026.

6. Nevertheless, since the question of inclusion of two women members in the BCK (as co-opted members) is pending consideration before the Supreme Court, the first meeting of the Council has not taken place and the various Committees have also not been constituted. Hence, there is no doubt an interim arrangement has to be effected.

7. In this context, it was brought to the notice of this Court that on 24.06.2026, as per Ext.P5, the Chairman of the Bar Council India had constituted a Limited Interim Authority consisting of the learned Advocate General of Kerala, along with respondents 5 and 6 as the members. A rationale is evident from the constitution of the said Authority as the Advocate General of Kerala is an ex-officio member of the Bar Council of Kerala, while respondents 5 and 6 are the duly elected members of the BCK with the 5th respondent being an existing member of the Bar Council of India also. The 6th respondent is stated to have received the maximum votes and is included as Serial No.1 in the results published in the Gazette.

8. However, Ext.P6 order has been issued, without any reference to Ext.P5 and including the 4th respondent, who is a stranger to the BCK after 16.06.2026 (date of publication of the result). Further, Ext.P5 has not been superseded or set aside and hence has to be regarded as still in force. The failure to bear in mind Ext.P5 issued on 24.06.2026, prima facie, indicates non-application of mind.

9. In this context, it is appropriate to bear in mind that section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961, specifies that the term of office of a