Why high court said judges must speak through verdicts, can’t express pain publicly
While highlighting their complimentary roles, the court said, “The bar is the Army of the bench”.
The Allahabad High Court judges said many enrolled advocates engaged in businesses or other professions continued participating in Bar elections despite not actively practising law. (Image generated using AI)
Judges news: Highlighting the complementary roles of the ‘Bar’ and ‘Bench’, the Allahabad High Court has said that the Judges are required to speak through their Judgement, but at times they cannot express their agony or pain, publicly and then it is only the ‘Bar’ which can come to their rescue.
A bench of Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan was hearing two connected petitions involving disputes over the constitution of ‘Elders Committees’ and election processes in the district Bar associations of Mau and Bijnor.
“The Bar is the ‘Army’ of the Bench. The Judges are required to speak through their Judgement, but at times they cannot express their agony or pain, publicly; then it is only the Bar which can come to their rescue,” the high court said on May 20, underlining the central role of advocates in preserving the judiciary’s independence and credibility.
Justices Atul Sreedharan and Siddharth Nandan of the Allahabad High Court said that the Bar ensures that no illegal means are used to influence the Judges. (Image enhanced using AI)
Bar protects Bench
- The Bye-laws of the Association build the character of the Bar; it is their dignity which determines the status of the Bar, and naturally, the strength of the Army is to protect the “Judges” from various evils, obstructing the justice delivery system.
- It ensures that no illegal or improper means are used to influence the Judges; and it is responsible to prevent it’s clients from resorting to sharp or unfair practices.
- He has to use restrained language in correspondence, avoiding scurrilous attacks in pleadings, and using intemperate language during argument in court; and indisciplined or non-practicing lawyers cannot maintain such standards.
Court says Bar associations losing their core purpose
The judgment arose from petitions filed by advocate Chandrashekhar Upadhyay relating to the District Bar Association, Mau, and advocate Ankit Kumar concerning the District Bar Association and Library, Bijnor.
Both petitions challenged decisions linked to the formation of ‘Elders Committees’ and the conduct of elections.
Calling the ‘Bar’ the “Army” of the ‘Bench’, the Allahabad High Court has warned that Bar associations across Uttar Pradesh were increasingly being consumed by election battles, money power, and the influence of non-practising lawyers.
The Allahabad High Court noted that repeated litigation over Bar elections had reached alarming levels and reflected a deeper institutional breakdown within advocate bodies across the state.
The judges held that Bar Councils cannot interfere in Bar association elections beyond deciding seniority disputes, stressing that the dignity of the legal profession and the justice delivery system must be protected from internal chaos.
The Allahabad High Court noted that Bar associations were increasingly becoming battlegrounds for internal power struggles instead of institutions dedicated to assisting courts and strengthening the administration of justice.
The bench said that courts were being flooded with writ petitions arising out of Bar election disputes because of loopholes, manipulation and lack of clarity in the implementation of model bye-laws framed by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh.
Sharp remarks against non-practising lawyers
The judges warned that non-practising lawyers and financially influential groups had started dominating Bar politics.
“Money-power started controlling the constitution of the Governing Council of the Bar Association,” the bench noted, adding that such trends were harming the justice delivery system and sidelining genuine practitioners.
The judges said many enrolled advocates engaged in businesses or other professions continued participating in Bar elections despite not actively practising law.
According to the court, this had diluted professional ethics and weakened the institutional character of Bar associations.
Why ‘Elders Committees’ became flashpoint
A major issue before the court was the growing controversy around ‘Elders Committees’, bodies meant to take over the administration of Bar associations and conduct elections once the tenure of elected office-bearers expires.
Under the model bye-laws, an ‘Elders committee must consist of the five senior-most actively practising advocates.
However, the Allahabad High Court found that attempts were being made to bypass this structure through nominations and internal manoeuvring.
“It is strange to note that the concept of the constitution of ‘Elders Committee’ by the five senior-most members… is being diluted,” the high court said.
The court stressed that the idea behind the committee was to ensure experienced and respected lawyers supervised elections impartially and protected the integrity of the institution.
High court clarifies powers of Bar councils
- One of the key legal questions before the court was whether the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh could intervene in election disputes or postpone elections.
- The court ruled that the Bar Council’s powers were limited.
- While it can decide disputes relating to seniority under Section 21 of the Advocates Act, it cannot interfere in elections or issue directions to postpone them.
- The Allahabad High Court held that the Bar councils cannot control or supervise election processes directly.
- They cannot stop Elders Committees from conducting elections.
- They cannot interfere in internal democratic functioning of Bar Associations.
- Violation of model bye-laws may result in disaffiliation, but not disciplinary proceedings against advocates.
- The judgment also clarified that powers available to Registrars under the Societies Registration Act to conduct elections of societies would not apply to Bar Associations because they occupy a special legal status linked to the justice system.
‘One Bar one vote’ reaffirmed
The court strongly defended the “One Bar one vote” principle aimed at ensuring that actively practising advocates alone influence Bar politics.
The bench said that the right to vote in Bar elections is not a fundamental right but a statutory right that can be reasonably restricted.
The judges noted that unrestricted participation by lawyers who are not actively practising was damaging the functioning of Bar associations and affecting judicial administration.
Elders Committees can run administration, but with limits
The high court also clarified the powers of ‘Elders Committees’ once they assume control after expiry of an elected body’s tenure.
According to the ruling administrative powers shift to the ‘Elders Committee’ after the tenure ends.
The committee can conduct elections and manage routine functioning.
However, it cannot take major policy decisions.
Its role is temporary and intended to restore democratic functioning quickly.
The court also laid down a mechanism for handling disputes among members of ‘Elders Committees’ so that elections are not indefinitely delayed.
Court calls Bar associations ‘public functionaries’
The high court said that Bar Associations perform public functions because they are closely linked to the functioning of courts and access to justice.
The court noted that advocates’ bodies receive recognition from Bar councils, participate in welfare schemes, interact regularly with judges, and play a direct role in maintaining judicial standards.
The judges warned that deterioration within Bar associations could directly affect public confidence in the judiciary.
“The confidence of people in the institution of the judiciary is necessary to be preserved at any cost,” the judges said while referring to an earlier Supreme Court precedent.
Share
