“Bound by Rules” vs “Not Bound by Rules” — Raises Serious Concerns of Bias, Arbitrariness, and Violation of Article 14
Selective Application of Rules Triggers Debate on Fairness, Judicial Discipline, and Rule of Law
“Rules When Convenient, Discarded When Not” — Allegations of Double Standards, Violation of Art 14 of the Constitution and Legal Impropriety Intensify
Mumbai | Special Report
A serious controversy has emerged in relation to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa elections, with grave allegations being raised against the Supervisory Committee headed by Justice (Retd.) Sudhanshu Dhulia. The Committee is accused of adopting contradictory stands, disregarding binding rules, and binding judgments of the Supreme Court and acting in a manner allegedly inconsistent with settled principles of law and fairness.
Video recordings that have surfaced have intensified the controversy, raising concerns regarding bias, lack of consistency, and deviation from binding legal standards by a body entrusted with ensuring a free and fair electoral process for advocates.
⚖️ Order Dated 11.03.2026: “Rules Are Binding Law”
In its order dated 11.03.2026, the Supervisory Committee comprising Justice (Retd.) Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice (Retd.) Ravi Shankar Jha, and Senior Advocate V. Giri, while adjudicating the nomination challenges of office bearers of various District Bar Associations, categorically held in Paragraph 21 as under:
“Be that as it may, the fact is that the Rule, which bars the office bearers of the Bar Associations from contesting the elections, remains intact as of today, and this Supervisory Committee is bound by it. In other words, the said Rule is the law in force, and thus, no direction in favour of the appellants can be passed by this Supervisory Committee.”
Thus, the Committee unequivocally acknowledged that the applicable Rules are binding, mandatory, and constitute the law in force, and that no relaxation or deviation could be granted in favour of the concerned candidates.
The said order affected several advocates, including:
The said order affected several advocates, including Adv. Ravi Prakash Jadhav (Mumbai), Adv. Prasad Naik (Goa), Adv. Sanjay Tejmal Jain (Yavatmal), Adv. Sagar Chitre (Jalgaon), Adv. Prakash Jagtap (Kalyan), Adv. Janaki D. Godhamgaokar (Nanded), Adv. Asif Naqvi (Mumbai), Adv. Poonam Vijaykumar Bodkepatil (Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar), and Adv. Sanjay Kolhapure (Dadar, Mumbai).
The Committee, therefore, adopted a strict interpretation of the Rules and denied relief on the ground that it was bound by the statutory provisions, thereby unequivocally affirming that no authority exists to act contrary to the Rules in force.
25.03.2026 Proceedings: “We Are Not Bound by Rules”
However, during the subsequent proceedings held on 25.03.2026 concerning the appointment of the Returning Officer, a video recording has brought to light a startling and highly concerning statement attributed to Justice (Retd.) Ravi Shankar Jha:
“We are not bound by the rules and statutory provisions; we can take a decision against the rules.”
This apparent and stark departure from the earlier stand has triggered serious legal and constitutional concerns. Observers and legal experts have pointed out that a statutory body cannot, on the one hand, treat the Rules as binding law while adjudicating the rights of one set of advocates, and on the other hand, claim exemption from those very Rules in the same election process when complaints are raised against another set of advocates.
Significantly, the said proceedings arose out of a petition filed by the very same advocates, including Adv. Ravi Prakash Jadhav, Adv. Prakash Jagtap, and others, whose nominations were earlier rejected on the ground that the Committee was bound by the Rules. The arguments in the matter were advanced by Adv. Nilesh Ojha, Adv. Sanjot Desai, Adv. Vijay Kurle, Adv. Partho Sarkar, and other counsel, thereby making the inconsistency in the Committee’s approach all the more evident and raising serious questions regarding uniformity, fairness, and adherence to binding legal principles.
Such selective application of Rules, depending upon the parties involved, prima facie reflects arbitrariness, lack of uniform standards, and raises serious issues of discrimination, thereby striking at the very root of fairness, judicial discipline, and the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court Position: Discrimination amounts to violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution – Double Standards Impermissible — Contradictory Orders Amount to Judicial Impropriety and Lead to Judicial Anarchy
Legal experts point out that the law is well-settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that adjudicatory authorities cannot adopt contradictory stands or apply double standards, as such conduct strikes at the very foundation of the rule of law. It is gross violation of Art 14 of the Constitution of India.
In Hari Singh v. Union of India (1993) 3 SCC 114, and Nand Lal Mishra v. Kanhaiya Lal Mishra AIR 1960 SC 882, Adani Power Ltd. & Anr V. Union Of India & Ors., 2026 INSC 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has unequivocally deprecated inconsistent and self-contradictory approaches by authorities, holding that such actions undermine judicial discipline and institutional integrity.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that any deviation from uniform application of law, or selective enforcement of rules, leads to arbitrariness and discrimination, thereby violating the fundamental principles enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Such inconsistency is not merely an error of judgment but amounts to judicial impropriety, and gives rise to “judicial anarchy”, as it creates uncertainty, erodes public confidence, and weakens the credibility of the justice delivery system.
Article 14 Mandate: No Arbitrariness, No Discrimination by Public Authorities
It is a settled constitutional position that under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, every public authority is under a binding obligation to ensure equal treatment to all persons, and that any form of arbitrariness, discrimination, or selective application of rules is impermissible in law.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the Constitution Bench judgment of Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600, has emphatically held as under:
It is wholly improper and undesirable to expose precious rights — including the rights of life, liberty, and property — to the vagaries of individual whims and fancies. Persons do not become wise merely because they occupy high positions of power, as good sense and fairness are not attributes that automatically accompany a post, however exalted.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court thus laid down in the clearest terms that exercise of power by public authorities must be guided by fairness, reasonableness, and uniform standards, and cannot be left to subjective discretion or arbitrary decision-making.
Any conduct reflecting selective application of rules, inconsistent standards, or differential treatment between similarly placed persons strikes at the very root of Article 14 and renders such action constitutionally vulnerable.
Deviation from Binding Supreme Court Precedents on Bar Council Functioning
The view attributed to Justice (Retd.) Ravi Shankar Jha, to the extent it suggests that the Committee is not bound by the Rules or statutory provisions, stands in direct conflict with binding principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court governing the functioning of statutory authorities, including Bar Councils.
In Babu Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala (1999) 3 SCC 422, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court thus authoritatively settled that when a statute or Rules prescribe a specific procedure, that procedure alone must be followed, and any action in deviation thereof is illegal and void. This principle is of fundamental importance in ensuring rule-based governance and preventing arbitrariness in statutory decision-making.
Further, in State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that adjudicatory authorities are duty-bound to apply the correct and binding law, even if such law is not specifically raised by the parties, and any order passed in disregard of binding precedents stands vitiated in law as it violates Art 141 of the Constitution.
It is a settled constitutional position under Article 141 of the Constitution of India that the law declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on all courts and authorities, and any action or order contrary thereto is rendered legally unsustainable.
🗳️ BCI Election Tribunal (2018): Entire Election Set Aside on Identical Grounds- said order is binding upon the present Supervisory Committee.
In a closely comparable situation, the Bar Council of India Election Tribunal (3-Judge Bench), by its order dated 17.04.2018, categorically:
- set aside the entire election process, and
- directed a de novo election,
on the ground of illegal appointment of the Bar Council Secretary as Returning Officer in violation of mandatory Rules.
The said decision clearly establishes that any deviation from prescribed statutory provisions governing election procedures strikes at the root of the process and renders the entire election invalid.
⚖️ Bombay High Court Position: Violation of Mandatory Rules Vitiates Entire Process
In Dattatray Jadhav v. State Co-operative Election Authority (2017 SCC OnLine Bom), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has unequivocally held:
➡️ Violation of mandatory statutory Rules vitiates the entire election process from its very inception.
📜 Binding Nature of Precedents on Supervisory Committee
The above judgments are binding on the Supervisory Committee. It is a settled principle of law that co-ordinate benches of tribunals, committees, or quasi-judicial bodies are bound by earlier decisions of co-equal benches, and cannot take a contrary view in the absence of a valid reference to a larger bench.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that any subsequent order passed in disregard of binding precedents of co-equal benches is rendered void, per incuriam, and legally vitiated.
Thus, any departure from these settled principles not only undermines judicial discipline but also exposes the entire process to serious legal challenge and potential invalidation.
⚖️ No Authority Has Unlimited Discretion
It is a well-settled principle of law that no authority in India enjoys unfettered, absolute, or arbitrary discretion. Every statutory or quasi-judicial authority is bound to act strictly in accordance with law, established procedures, and binding judicial precedents.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently reiterated this position in, inter alia:
- Sundarjas Bhatija v. Collector, Thane AIR 1990 SC 261
- Medical Council of India v. G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust (2018) 12 SCC 564
- State of M.P. v. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphasized that exercise of discretion must be structured, guided, and controlled by law, and cannot be based on subjective satisfaction, convenience, or expediency.
Accordingly, every authority is bound by:
- statutory rules,
- prescribed procedures, and
- binding precedents declared under Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Any action taken in deviation of these mandatory requirements is not merely irregular, but becomes legally unsustainable, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside, and in appropriate cases, may be treated as per incuriam for having been passed in disregard of binding law.
