Supreme Court Upholds BCI’s Steep Election Fee Hike; Declines to Interfere in Roche-Natco Patent Dispute and TN Governor Row

New Delhi – In a series of significant proceedings on Friday, October 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed several high-profile cases, delivering decisions with far-reaching implications for the legal profession, patent law, and constitutional governance. The Court declined to entertain a challenge to the Bar Council of India's (BCI) substantial increase in nomination fees for State Bar Council elections, dismissed a pharmaceutical giant's patent appeal, and deferred a hearing on the Tamil Nadu government's dispute with its Governor.

---

Young Lawyers Must Wait, Says SC on ₹1.25 Lakh Bar Election Fee

In a decision that has sparked debate within the legal fraternity, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to entertain a writ petition challenging the Bar Council of India's recent circular that hiked the nomination fee for State Bar Council elections from ₹9,000 to ₹1,25,000. The Court’s stance effectively leaves the steep fee in place, a move petitioners argued creates an insurmountable financial barrier for young and less affluent advocates.

The petition, Manish Jain v. Bar Council of India (W.P.(C) No. 1005/2025), was filed directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, alleging that the BCI's decision was a violation of fundamental rights to equality (Article 14), freedom (Article 19), and life and personal liberty (Article 21).

Arguments Against the Fee Hike

Senior counsel representing the petitioners, advocates Manish Jain and Pradeep Kumar, argued forcefully that the BCI's circular (No. BCI:D:6880/2025(Council-STBC’s)) was arbitrary and disproportionate. The counsel contended that the more than 13-fold increase was exorbitant and had no rational nexus to a candidate's standing or experience at the Bar.

"From ₹9,000 it goes straight to ₹1,25,000. Someone who joined the profession two or three years ago would find it impossible to contest,” the counsel submitted.

The petition described the measure as "an antithesis to democracy," asserting that it promotes money and muscle power, curtails equal opportunity, and restricts representation to a financially privileged class of advocates. It was suggested that a more equitable system would link nomination fees to a lawyer's professional seniority, similar to the structure followed in the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections.

The petitioners also contested the BCI's purported justification for the hike—a shortage of funds. They claimed this justification was baseless, pointing out that many State Bar Councils are financially robust. The Bar Council of Delhi, for instance, was cited as having reserves of approximately ₹99 crore.

The Court’s Reluctance and Dismissal

The bench, however, remained unmoved by these arguments. Justice Surya Kant, in a remark that underscored the Court's position, suggested that aspiring young candidates could simply postpone their electoral ambitions.

“Let him (young lawyers) wait. There is no tearing hurry to contest elections,” Justice Kant observed.

When the bench began dictating an order to dismiss the plea, counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw it, requesting liberty to approach the appropriate High Court, given that similar challenges were already pending in some states. While the Court allowed the withdrawal, it did not explicitly record the liberty to approach the High Court in its final order. The case was formally dismissed as withdrawn.

This outcome leaves the ₹1.25 lakh nomination fee as a prerequisite for contesting the upcoming State Bar Council elections, which were mandated by a separate Supreme Court order to be completed by January 31, 2026. The decision is seen as a significant setback for advocates who argue that the financial barrier will stifle diversity and democratic participation in the governance of the legal profession.

---

Other Key Developments at the Supreme Court:

Roche’s Patent Appeal Over SMA Drug Dismissed

In a major development for patent litigation in the pharmaceutical sector, a bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice A.S. Chandurkar dismissed a special leave petition filed by Swiss pharma giant F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG. Roche was appealing a Delhi High Court order that permitted Indian firm Natco Pharma to manufacture and sell a generic version of Risdiplam, a critical drug for treating Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA).

The bench declined to interfere, highlighting that the High Court's decision was an interim order and that both a single judge and a division bench had reached concurrent findings.

“We are not inclined to interfere for the reason that it is interim in nature and also because the findings are concurrent," the Court observed, while urging the High Court to expedite the final disposal of the main suit.

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for Roche, argued that his client held the patent for the drug (IN'397), developed after years of research and massive investment. He contended that using a public interest argument to override patent rights was unfair. Despite his pleas to at least admit the matter on a point of law regarding the test for inventiveness, the bench was not persuaded. The dismissal solidifies Natco's position to market its generic version for now, a move celebrated as a win for access to affordable medicine in India.

Court Defers Tamil Nadu Government’s Plea Against Governor

The constitutional tussle between the State of Tamil Nadu and its Governor saw another day in court, with a bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran deferring the hearing of the state's writ petitions. The petitions challenge the Governor's action of referring two key bills—the Kalaignar University Bill, 2025, and a Sports University amendment bill—to the President of India for consideration.

CJI Gavai advised the state's counsel, Senior Advocate Dr. A.M. Singhvi, to wait for the verdict on a pending Presidential Reference concerning the timelines for Governors and the President to grant assent to bills.

“You have to wait hardly for 4 weeks, the reference has to be decided before 21st (November)," the CJI noted.

The state argued that the Governor does not have the authority to dissect bills "like a judge" and refer them to the President on grounds of repugnancy. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta countered that examining bills is a constitutional duty of the Governor and that making such references justiciable would overwhelm the courts. With the matter deferred, the constitutional questions surrounding the legislative authority of states and the discretionary powers of the Governor remain unresolved.