During a hearing on 27 January 2026, a Supreme Court Bench led by Chief Justice of India(CJI) Surya Kant, along with Justice R. Mahadevan and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, sharply questioned the Bar Council of India (BCI) over its refusal to pay proper honorarium and travel allowances to retired High Court Judges.

These retired Judges have been appointed as members of High-Powered Election Committees formed to supervise State Bar Council elections.

Background:

The issue came before the Court on an oral mentioning by Senior Advocate V. Giri, who is himself a member of the High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee. Giri told the Bench that the honorarium being offered was inadequate and did not match the stature and position of former High Court Chief Justices and Judges serving on these Committees.

Giri pointed out that when the issue was raised with the BCI, the statutory body had responded that “it was too much and it may not be possible for them to do that.”

He requested the court to either issue appropriate directions in the matter or grant specific authorisation to retired Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia to take necessary steps in this regard. He also placed before the Bench the Bar Council of India’s reply.

Giri further pointed out that the BCI had gone against the Supreme Court’s earlier order dated 18 November 2024. He said that the BCI had constituted a separate election committee for the Rajasthan Bar Council elections, even though the Court’s earlier directions did not allow for or even consider such a committee.

Addressing the counsel appearing for the Bar Council of India , CJI Surya Kant asked pointedly: “Why you have not included Rajasthan and why are you constituting a committee separately?”

The Bench took strong objection to the BCI’s stance on allowances. Stressing that the election fee fixed by the BCI was intended to raise sufficient funds for conducting elections, the Chief Justice observed:

“You fixed the election fee on the ground that it will generate sufficient funds for conducting elections. Now you are telling retired judges you can't pay them honorarium, you can't pay travel allowances. What they will do? Do they have their own aircraft?”

Giri further told the court that some judges appointed to the Committees had said they were being asked to make their own travel bookings, and bear the cost themselves. He also said that they were facing uncomfortable travel and stay arrangements.

Quoting him, Giri said“When they get there, the kind of facilities they are given there, let alone that they are not befitting a former Chief Justice, it is difficult. Bookings have to be done by paying from their own pocket. This is not correct,” he told the Court.

The BCI’s counsel informed the Court that an affidavit proposing payment arrangements had been filed. However, Giri pointed out that under the existing proposal, reimbursements would take a long time to process.

Supreme Court’s Directions:

The Bench directed the Bar Council of India to file a detailed reply by the next day. It asked the BCI to explain why a separate committee was formed for the Rajasthan Bar Council elections without informing the Court, and to respond to the objections raised about honorarium and travel allowances.

The Court also warned the BCI that failure to follow its directions could lead to further judicial intervention.

The Supreme Court had earlier on 24.09.24 mandated the conduct of elections in statutory Bar Councils where elections were due, and on 18.11.24 constituted High-Powered Election Committees headed by former High Court Chief Justices, along with a High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee consisting of Justice Dhulia, Justice Ravi Shankar Jha (Former Punjab &Haryana CJ) and Senior Advocate Giri.