Supreme Court Discusses Reforming Bar Associations: Concerns Over Informal Events With Judges Raised

The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing a group of cases related to improving the functioning and structure of Bar Associations across the country. During one such hearing, an important issue was raised — the frequent informal interactions between lawyers and judges.

Senior Advocate Sirajudeen pointed out that judges are often invited to social events like birthday parties hosted by members of the Bar.

He claimed that this kind of interaction wastes judicial time and gives the public the wrong impression — that being friendly with judges may influence court proceedings.

“Judges are being invited to at least two parties every week,” he said. “Such unnecessary interaction sends a wrong message that those close to judges may get favorable treatment.”

This statement was objected to by Senior Advocate S. Prabhakaran, Vice Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI), who called the comments “scandalous.”

Court Seeks Guidelines for Bar Association Reforms:

The Supreme Court is examining these issues as part of a wider effort to set clear rules and improve the structure and credibility of Bar Associations nationwide.

Justice Surya Kant, who is part of the bench hearing the matter along with Justice Dipankar Datta, pointed out that some states have multiple Bar Associations, some with as few as 10 to 15 members. He also said there is a lack of legal clarity about how Bar Associations should be formed and run.

He questioned whether the Advocates Act gives any authority — such as the BCI or governments — the power to form or regulate Bar Associations.

In response, BCI Vice Chairman Prabhakaran said that Bar Associations with more than 200–300 members usually apply to the State Bar Council for recognition. Once registered, they become eligible for government welfare benefits.

The “Gray Area” of Regulation:

Justice Kant expressed concern that this area of the legal system remains poorly regulated. He said, “Unfortunately, there is a gray area, there's a vacuum that needs to be taken care of. Advocates are very big stakeholders in the administration of justice.”

He also suggested that stronger entry and renewal standards might be needed for advocates. He mentioned ideas such as minimum qualifying exams, regular updates to legal knowledge, and even suspending licenses for those who don’t keep up. “Vote-bank politics cannot be the way forward,” he warned, referring to the growing number of lawyers without a proper system to ensure their continuous development.

Case Background:

This hearing originally began as a case about alleged discrimination and elitism within the Madras Bar Association. However, the petitioners decided to withdraw those specific allegations, including those made against the late Senior Advocate PH Pandian.

Instead, the focus of the case shifted to the larger issue — setting national-level guidelines to improve the structure, functioning, and accountability of Bar Associations across India.

What Lies Ahead?

The Supreme Court is now considering whether recognition of Bar Associations should come from the State Bar Council or the concerned High Court. The appointed Amicus Curiae, Senior Advocate K. Parmeswar, has been asked to examine this further.

Conclusion:

This case could lead to major changes in how lawyers' groups function in India. From more transparent recognition systems to clearer ethical standards and continuing legal education, the Court seems to be paving the way for reform — with the goal of maintaining public trust and strengthening the justice system.