'Undermines Democracy': Plea In Kerala High Court Challenges BCI's 2400% Nomination Fee Hike For Contesting Elections To State Bar Councils

The petition, filed by Advocate Rajesh Vijayan, enrolled in 1996 and a member of the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) since 2019, argues that the decision is “arbitrary, illegal, unreasonable, and disproportionate,” violating both the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of Kerala Election Rules, 1979.

Significant to note that the Supreme Court on September 24 directed that State Bar Council elections be concluded by January 31, 2026. Pursuant to this order, BCI issued a circular on September 25, for Constitution of Election Committees and imposed a hike on the nomination fee.

The petitioner contends that the apex court never directed any revision of nomination fees. The BCI claimed in its circular that the hike in the nomination fee is due to the shortfall of funds consequent to reduction in enrollment fee on Supreme Court direction.

The petitioner submits that the Supreme Court did not reduce any legal source of funds from the Bar Councils and thus, the short-fall of enrolment fees, if any, cannot be a legal ground taken by the respondents to increase the nomination fees arbitrarily.

It is also argued that no budgets, cost-breakups, or comparative financial analysis are attached to or referenced in the communication, to support this claim. It is further submitted that there is no adequate collection of data, or a study conducted to understand the short-fall of resources.

Referring to the 1979 Bar Council of Kerala Rules, duly approved by the BCI in 1980, the petitioner points that the prescribed nomination deposit remains ₹5,000, refundable in case of withdrawal or success. Any change, he argues, must follow the statutory amendment process, which has not been undertaken.

The petition emphasizes that such a non-refundable fee will “cripple democratic participation” by restricting candidature to only financially affluent lawyers. Young advocates, women, and practitioners from smaller towns or weaker economic backgrounds would be effectively barred from contesting.

It is submitted that the Advocate Act does not empower the BCI to legislate on elections to the State Bar Councils. It is further stated that the Section 7(1) (k) of the Act does not provide any power to arbitrarily or illegally interfere with the election of the State Bar Councils carried as per Rules. It is also submitted that Section 3(4) of the Advocates Act does not allow BCI to legislate upon nomination fees for elections to State Bar Councils.

The plea also draws attention to the 2025 Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) Electoral Reforms Committee report chaired by retired Justice L. Nageswara Rao, which categorically rejected proposals to increase nomination fees, warning that such hikes “send the wrong message that elections are meant only for lawyers with deep pockets.”

The petition is filed seeking reliefs including quashing the BCI communication, a declaration that elections must be held strictly under the Bar Council of Kerala Rules, 1979, and a ruling that BCI has no authority to fix nomination fees for State Bar Council elections.

Case Title: Adv Rajesh Vijayan v Bar Council of India and Another

Case No: WP(C) 36545/ 2025

Counsel for Petitioner: Santhosh Mathew, Senior Advocate, Shinto Mathews Abraham, Arun Thomas, Veena Raveendran, Karthika Maria, Anil Sebastian Pulickel, Leah Rachel Ninan, Mathew Nevin Thomas, Karthika Rajagopal, Kurian Antony Mathew, Aparnna S, Adeen Nazar, Arun Joseph Mathew, Noel Ninan