Supreme Court Rules on Bar Council Elections and Voter Eligibility Disputes

The Supreme Court of India has ruled on multiple interlocutory applications related to the conduct of elections to various State Bar Councils. The case, Ajayinder Sangwan & Ors. vs. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors., involved petitions seeking modifications in the election schedule, appointment of neutral oversight committees, and disputes over voter eligibility. The Court upheld the election process established by the Bar Council of India (BCI) while dismissing applications that sought significant alterations.

Background of the Case

The dispute revolved around the conduct of elections for State Bar Councils in multiple states, including Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Goa, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. Advocates raised concerns about the fairness of elections, the dates chosen, and the exclusion of certain members from voter lists.

The Supreme Court had previously ruled on December 14, 2017, regarding Bar Council elections and had established a framework for conducting them. However, multiple lawyers filed fresh petitions requesting modifications to the process. The present ruling disposes of all such interlocutory applications through a common order.

Key Issues Before the Court

The Court addressed several issues:

Whether a neutral oversight committee should be appointed for Tamil Nadu Bar Council elections.
Whether the election date for the Kerala Bar Council should be rescheduled due to a festival.
Whether lawyers practicing in Delhi but registered with other states should be allowed to vote in Delhi.
Whether the election date for the Rajasthan Bar Council should be changed due to court holidays.
Whether the Telangana Bar Council elections should be conducted, given that no separate body existed yet.
Whether an advocate, whose documents were allegedly incomplete, should be allowed to vote in Delhi.

Arguments from Petitioners

Petitioners Seeking a Neutral Oversight Committee in Tamil Nadu

They argued that the Advocate General of Tamil Nadu, an ex-officio member of the State Bar Council, had expressed doubts about his ability to ensure free and fair elections.
The Madras High Court had previously considered appointing retired Supreme Court or High Court judges to oversee the elections but refrained since the matter was before the Supreme Court.

Petitioners Seeking Changes to the Kerala Election Date

They claimed that March 25, 2018, fell on a religious festival, making it difficult for voters to participate.
They requested that the election be moved to March 18, 2018.

Petitioners Seeking to Vote in Delhi Despite Being Registered in Other States

Lawyers from Maharashtra and Goa, now practicing in Delhi, sought permission to vote at a polling station in Delhi.
They cited a Bar Council of India resolution requesting the Supreme Court to direct the Secretary General to provide space for out-of-state voters.

Petitioners Seeking a Change in Rajasthan Election Date

They argued that the elections, scheduled for March 28, 2018, coincided with court holidays, preventing High Court lawyers from voting.

Petitioner Seeking Inclusion in the Delhi Electoral Roll

One advocate claimed he had submitted all necessary documents but was omitted from the voter list.
He sought a court directive to include his name.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

No New Oversight Committee for Tamil Nadu Bar Council Elections

The Court rejected the request for a new oversight committee in Tamil Nadu. It noted that the Bar Council of India had already appointed a committee comprising:

Justice V.K. Gupta (Former Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court)
Justice T. Sudanthiram (Former Judge, Madras High Court)
Justice V.D. Gyani (Former Judge, Madhya Pradesh High Court)

The Court held that there was no justification for replacing this committee.

Kerala Bar Council Election Date Preponed

The Court accepted the request to shift the Kerala election date from March 25 to March 18, 2018, due to the religious festival. However, it clarified that the rest of the election schedule would remain unchanged.

Lawyers from Maharashtra & Goa Cannot Vote in Delhi

The Court ruled that lawyers must vote in the states where they were registered and could not be allowed to vote in Delhi. The request to establish a polling station in Delhi was rejected.

Rajasthan Election Date Remains Unchanged

The Court declined to change the Rajasthan Bar Council election date. It ruled that High Court holidays were insufficient grounds for rescheduling and that lawyers should plan accordingly.

No Elections for Telangana Bar Council

The Court observed that the Telangana Bar Council had not yet been formed and, therefore, elections for it could not be scheduled at this stage.

Delhi Advocate’s Request for Inclusion in Voter List Denied

The Court rejected the plea of an advocate who sought inclusion in the Delhi electoral roll, ruling that he had failed to submit the required documents on time.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the election process established by the Bar Council of India.
It reinforced that lawyers must vote in their registered states and not in places of practice.
The ruling emphasized the need for strict adherence to electoral procedures in professional bodies.
The Court balanced fairness by allowing a date change in Kerala while rejecting other rescheduling requests.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling has significant implications for the legal community and bar council elections:

For Lawyers

They must vote in the states where they are registered.
Strict documentation is necessary for inclusion in voter rolls.
Election dates will not be changed unless strong justifications are presented.

For Bar Councils

They must ensure transparency and adherence to established election procedures.
Oversight committees are recognized as valid mechanisms for conducting fair elections.
Newly formed states like Telangana must establish bar councils before elections can take place.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ajayinder Sangwan & Ors. vs. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. establishes clear guidelines for the conduct of Bar Council elections across India. By upholding procedural integrity while addressing legitimate concerns, the Court has ensured that the electoral process remains fair and transparent. The decision reinforces the importance of legal compliance in professional elections and will serve as a precedent for future disputes.

Petitioner Name: Ajayinder Sangwan and Others
Respondent Name: Bar Council of Delhi and Others
Judgment By: Justice R.K. Agrawal, Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre
Judgment Date: 05-02-2018

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Ajayinder Sangwan an vs Bar Council of Delhi Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-02-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Judgment by R K Agrawal
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category