The Supreme Court on Friday sent out a strong message on professional ethics within the legal fraternity, observing that lawyers who seek to contest bar council elections must be held to higher standards of ethical conduct. The apex court refused to entertain a plea by a Telangana-based lawyer who had been barred from contesting the upcoming Telangana State Bar Council elections due to pending criminal complaints against him.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi made it clear that the legal profession cannot be equated with ordinary electoral politics, and that advocates aspiring to leadership positions within bar bodies are expected to uphold stricter ethical norms. The bench remarked, prima facie, that the petitioner “is not the person who should be allowed to contest” the state bar council elections.

The observations came while the court was hearing a petition filed by Rapolu Bhaskar, a prominent advocate practising in the Telangana High Court. Bhaskar had challenged provisions that disqualify advocates from contesting state bar council elections if they face criminal complaints, even in the absence of a conviction.

Arguing on Bhaskar’s behalf, his counsel contended that the disqualification was arbitrary and unfair, as the petitioner had neither been convicted nor punished in any criminal case. The lawyer emphasised that mere pendency of complaints should not be enough to deny an advocate the right to contest elections within the bar.

However, the bench was not persuaded. “The standards of ethical values are higher for lawyers,” Chief Justice Surya Kant observed, underscoring that members of the legal profession are expected to meet benchmarks that go beyond those applicable to ordinary citizens or political candidates.

The CJI further pointed out what he described as a contradiction in the legal community’s stance. Lawyers, he noted, are often among the first to approach courts challenging the candidature of “tainted” individuals in general elections, citing criminal antecedents and the need for clean public life. “When lawyers themselves raise such issues in public elections, how can the bar be expected to lower its own standards?” the court remarked in substance.

The bench also referred to growing concerns about the public perception of bar leaders and bar bodies in recent times. The Chief Justice observed that if bar councils and professional bodies are attempting to restore or maintain certain professional and ethical standards, the judiciary should not stand in their way.

“Looking at the perception about bar leaders today, if the bar bodies want to maintain professional standards, they should not be stopped from doing so,” the CJI said, indicating that internal regulatory mechanisms aimed at preserving the credibility of the legal profession deserve judicial support rather than interference.

In response, counsel for Bhaskar sought to highlight his long professional career. He told the court that Bhaskar had filed around 22,000 cases during his years of practice and had an extensive record as a practising advocate. Denying him the opportunity to contest bar elections based on two complaints filed by third parties, the counsel argued, was disproportionate and unjust.

The bench, however, remained unconvinced. The judges appeared more concerned with the principle involved than with the petitioner’s professional achievements. The underlying issue, the court suggested, was not about the volume of cases handled but about the ethical image and integrity of those who seek to represent and regulate the legal profession.

Adding weight to the court’s reasoning, senior advocate and Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson Manan Kumar Mishra intervened in the matter. Mishra pointed out that elected members of state bar councils are not merely representatives of lawyers but also perform quasi-judicial functions. They are tasked with adjudicating disciplinary proceedings against advocates accused of professional misconduct.

Given this role, Mishra argued, it is essential that those elected to bar councils command moral authority and public confidence. Allowing advocates facing criminal complaints to occupy such positions could undermine both the credibility of disciplinary processes and the standing of the profession as a whole.

The Supreme Court appeared to agree with this assessment. The bench indicated that bar council members, by virtue of their quasi-judicial responsibilities, cannot be placed on the same footing as candidates contesting purely political elections. The expectation of ethical probity, therefore, must necessarily be higher.

At one point during the hearing, Chief Justice Surya Kant made it clear that if the petitioner insisted on pressing his plea for a formal decision, the bench was prepared to pass orders. Reading the court’s mood and sensing that an adverse ruling was likely, Bhaskar’s counsel chose to withdraw the petition.

The withdrawal effectively upheld the existing disqualification provisions and cleared the way for the Telangana State Bar Council elections to proceed without judicial intervention. Following earlier directions of the Supreme Court, the elections are scheduled to be completed by January 31.

The episode is significant not just for its immediate outcome but for the broader message it sends about governance within the legal profession. Bar councils play a critical role in regulating advocates, enforcing professional discipline, and safeguarding the independence and integrity of the bar. The Supreme Court’s remarks reinforce the idea that those who seek to lead such bodies must be beyond reproach, or at least subject to stricter scrutiny than others.

The court’s emphasis on higher ethical standards also comes at a time when concerns have been raised nationally about declining public trust in institutions, including professional bodies. By backing the authority of bar councils to set and enforce eligibility norms, the apex court has signalled its support for internal reforms aimed at restoring confidence in the legal system.

At the same time, the case highlights a delicate balance between presumption of innocence and ethical expectations. While the court did not rule that pending complaints amount to guilt, it made it clear that leadership positions within the bar demand a higher threshold. The absence of a conviction, in the court’s view, does not automatically entitle an advocate to contest bar elections if the regulatory framework sets stricter standards.

In the end, the Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the plea reinforces a principle that has long underpinned the legal profession: that advocacy is not merely a vocation but a public trust. Those who aspire to regulate and represent their peers must exemplify integrity, not only in the courtroom but also in their conduct outside it.