The Ballot and the Burden: Reflections on the Eve of the Bar Council Election

Tomorrow, as the Bar Council of Kerala goes to the polls, I find myself wrestling with a familiar professional delimma—not one of statutes, but of choice. In our preferential system, we have the power to cast 25 preference votes, yet every candidate is chasing that elusive "First Preference." For a voter, this creates a significant burden of accommodation. How do you rank your favorites when the list is long and the stakes for our profession are so high?

This year, my own priority list has undergone an unexpected revision. I’ll be candid: Mr. Yeshwanth Shenoy did not originally find a place in my top preferences. Our history is well-known to those in the High Court; when he ran for President of the Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association, for the third time, I was perhaps his deepest critic. He lost that election, but I do not believe he was a meritless candidate; it was simply a case of a more meritorious candidate winning the day.

However, when it comes to the Bar Council, the story is different. We are not choosing a single leader, but selecting 25 representatives to steer our collective future. After listening to his promotional videos, I found myself pausing. His demand for a debate—comparing what the previous committee delivered with what the new contenders offer—is a fair and necessary demand.

It is a sad truth that we have heard very little of such substance during this campaign. For the last year, I have been working closely with undergraduates, preparing them to become advocates. Having examined their curriculum, I can assert that while it may prepare them to be regulators, judges, or teachers, it does very little to prepare them for the "practice of law", as an Advocate.

We need a Council that will interfere to change this by incorporating training methods that inculcate the skills of advocacy while still in college. During my interactions with students at the High Court, I was disappointed to find that the Bar Council lacks even minimal training facilities at its headquarters, and had to request the KHCAA for an accommdoation. While I am glad they are promoting an Academy, the current syllabus once again focuses on teaching law rather than practice. We need the Council to engage experts from the profession to create a structured program that helps students navigate the nuances of legal practice without adding an undue burden to their studies.

We must be realistic. Our candidates cannot promise the moon—they aren't going to offer free transport for women lawyers akin to the recent general election manifestos. But they do have an obligation to speak out as to why they are contesting. When the results come out, they will inevitably be viewed through the lens of political "colors," but the underlying interest of every group must remain the welfare and training of the advocates.

Let us be clear: if the training of advocates is properly addressed, their welfare is naturally secured. What young lawyers need is not a 5,000-rupee stipend, but something far more concrete: the tools to be practice-ready.

I write this only to say that we need to know more about our candidates' potential. While I may not completely upset my preference list for Mr. Shenoy, I will certainly include him for the right things he spoke. 

As I finalize my preferences tonight, the struggle is real. We are not just marking ballots; we are defining the leadership that will oversee the future of the Bar. Let us look for those who realize that a seat on the Council is a responsibility, not just a title.