SCBA polls face judicial scrutiny, SC orders recount amid charges of irregularities

United News of India

27-05-2025

New Delhi, May 27(UNI) The Supreme Court on Monday heard a petition challenging the recently concluded Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections, which led to serious deliberations over alleged electoral irregularities and demands for greater transparency.
A special bench comprising justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan presided over the proceedings.
The petitioners raised several concerns, including inconsistencies in vote counts, duplicate voting incidents, and a call for a re-election to restore trust in the process.
Senior Advocates Dr. Adish Aggarwala and Pradeep Rai presented their submissions, alongside the SCBA Election Committee's response through senior advocate Vijay Hansaria.
At the outset, Justice Kant urged decorum and professionalism, stating, 'We can sit till midnight if needed, but please do not get agitated. Things are being recorded and can go viral.'
Dr Aggarwala requested that certain matters be discussed in chambers, but the bench chose to maintain transparency by conducting proceedings in open court.
He alleged that candidate Vikas Singh had canvassed for votes after the conclusion of the election debate. However, the court noted that such issues should have been raised earlier.
Senior advocate Pradeep Rai, a presidential candidate, informed the bench that a recount showed 2,576 votes, significantly fewer than the 2,651 votes officially declared on May 20.
He cited discrepancies, including a case where a voter named Chandan Kumar reportedly found his vote already cast but was still allowed to vote again after intervention.
Rai stressed that such irregularities raised doubts over the legitimacy of the results, though he did not question the integrity of the election committee members.
In response, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, appearing for the election committee, refuted allegations of bias and said such claims had caused pain to the committee.
He clarified that a 'bona fide calculation error' had occurred but insisted it did not affect the overall outcome. The committee had received 19 representations, including one against Dr Aggarwala alleging gift distribution to sway voters.
Justice Kant, in a light moment, advised Hansaria not to take harsh remarks personally. However, he sternly warned that threats or coercion would discourage capable individuals from participating in the electoral process.
The bench praised the committee's work and reiterated its support, saying their conduct was akin to a fair tribunal.
The court directed a fresh recount of votes for the nine executive member posts in addition to the recount for the President's post.
It emphasized that young lawyers' morale should not be undermined due to unresolved doubts. Senior advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani informed the bench that 14 complaints had been received on the executive member elections.
The court said the recount will commence immediately after the courts reopen following the Partial Working Days (PWD) break.
The court accepted the election committee's proposal to involve an independent agency, avoiding bar volunteers to ensure impartiality. It also agreed to deploy Supreme Court staff to assist in the recount. The bench clarified, 'Candidates or their nominees may observe the recount but must not interfere.'
On May 26, the court had ordered a recount in light of serious concerns raised by multiple candidates.
The bench had then observed, 'Let no candidate have any doubt. Let there be recounting for all elections wherever there is a complaint,' and directed that results be withheld until the final recount report is submitted.
The court has also previously expressed satisfaction with women's representation in the executive committee.
On May 22, the bench noted with pride that three women lawyers were elected as senior executive members and remarked, 'This shows a very liberal and pragmatic approach. The bar has gone on the merit of the candidates, not gender.'
The petition challenging the elections had earlier invoked the precedent of SCBA vs. BD Kaushik, but the bench clarified that the principle of women's representation had been well served in this instance. Justice Kant said, 'We want your representation… we want women to have the instinct to compete. We are proud that three of our sisters have made it.'
The matter will now be taken up again in July after the court's vacation period, during which the bench has invited further suggestions from stakeholders.
UNI SNG PRS