The Supreme Court has directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to carry out a comprehensive audit of the disciplinary systems operated by it (the council) and State Bar Councils, saying the legal profession’s autonomy must be accompanied by greater accountability, transparency and effective regulation.

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe said the BCI should constitute a committee to evaluate how it and the State Bar Councils discharged their statutory responsibility of regulating professional conduct and discipline under the Advocates Act, 1961.

The BCI has been asked to consider the committee’s findings and file an affidavit detailing the action proposed or taken.

The directions came while allowing an appeal by advocate Ajay Vijh, whose name had been included in the caution list of the Indian Banks’ Association over an allegedly negligent legal opinion.

After setting aside his inclusion in the list, the court expanded the scope of the judgment to address broader concerns over regulation of the legal profession.

The Bench observed that complaints about delays in disciplinary proceedings, mounting pendency, inconsistent practices across State Bar Councils, and the absence of publicly available information on the status and outcome of disciplinary cases persisted for years.

While the statutory framework is intended to uphold professional standards, the court said the data to assess whether it was functioning effectively was insufficient.

To guide the review, the court said the audit should examine factors such as the number of complaints filed and disposed of each year, the average time taken to decide cases, agewise pendency, regional variations in disposal, staffing levels, procedural differences among Bar Councils, the nature of penalties imposed, transparency of proceedings, and compliance with statutory timelines.

The court also recommended that the committee include stakeholders beyond the legal fraternity, such as representatives of litigants, public administration experts, data analysts and professionals with experience in institutional reform. Such a diverse composition, it said, would promote objectivity and reduce institutional blind spots.

Observing that regulating advocates directly affected public confidence in the justice system, the Bench said the purpose of the exercise was to identify systemic strengths and weaknesses and facilitate evidence-based reforms without compromising the independence of the legal profession.

Referring to its earlier ruling in Yash Developers v. Harihar Krupa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd, the court noted that performance audits were an important tool in ensuring statutory institutions fulfil the objectives for which they were created.