SCBA polls face judicial scrutiny, SC orders recount amid charges of irregularities
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
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
9 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘We will do anything to save stray dogs': Protesters urge authorities to step up sterilisation in Delhi
Around 300 protesters from Delhi and nearby areas protested amid heavy police barricading on the road in front of Ramlila Maidan on Sunday against the Supreme Court's August 11 directive on relocation of dogs of Delhi-NCR to shelters. The top court's intervention came just days after the directive by a two-judge bench sparked massive outrage. The protesters, who alleged that permission to hold demonstrations inside the ground was cancelled at the last moment, marched till the 108-foot Hanuman statue in Karol Bagh after protesting for over two hours. Police personnel stationed in the area, however, claimed that multiple applications had been received, but not a single permission was granted. 'Yesterday, we received multiple calls from police officers who told us that we could protest and that we would be provided security, but when we arrived today (Sunday), they denied permission,' says Rishi Sharma, founder of Bharat Mata Rescue Animal Trust. Ashima Sharma (50), an animal feeder and caregiver, claimed that people want to work with the authorities, but they do not respond. 'We call the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to urge officials to pick up dogs for sterilisation, but they do not respond. If they do, they say: 'The driver is on leave'. But now, they are picking dogs during the night. How?' Another dog feeder from Shahdara's Ashok Nagar, Suraj Chaudhary (46), said that he has got 22 stray dogs sterilised. He has fed them and taken care of their medical bills for 27 years now. 'We will do anything to save our dogs, but I won't let even one dog get picked up from my colony. They are my family,' he said, adding that he was ready to cooperate with the authorities. During Sunday's protest, people also held placards. Some read: 'Stop relocation, start vaccination and sterilisation,' 'Awareness of rabies is needed, not elimination of an entire species,' 'Have compassion for living creatures'. Some protesters used megaphones to raise slogans like: 'Speak with us, CM Rekha Gupta,' 'No dog, no vote'. Sheila Devi in her forties from Gol Market who feeds 8 stray dogs hails the apex court decision as wrong. 'They should follow the ABC rule rather than mass relocating them. They bite only when they are hungry or somebody teases them.' Soon she is interrupted by another protester who says why not videos of puppies being thrown into drains are getting viral, citing they are also kids. 'There is no clue of any shelter, which place, at least tell us where you all are taking them?' she asks. Ambika Shukla, Trustee of People from Animals says dogs have co- existed along with humans. ' 'These dogs have existed here in many areas and lived here even before these colonies were built. Now that people have moved in, the same dogs are suddenly seen as a nuisance — why should they be gotten rid of ?' she questions adding that a dog bites in a state of fear as proven by animal behavioural experts. Shukla adds, 'If the world's apex body WHO clearly states that ABC method is the only proven way to curb dog populations, bites and rabies, why ignore the experts and impose our own uninformed views?' adding that the problem lies in poor implementation of the existing policies. She says that the authorities need to rope in the community feeders, 'the feeder knows every dog. Come and stand at the start of a gully, the feeder can bring every dog. This is more systematic, and efficient. The feeders are an asset, not an adversary,' she says, adding that every dog bite needs to be assessed before categorising it as a case of dog bite.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
President, not SC, decides when to seek court's opinion: Centre
Supreme Court NEW DELHI: Objecting to the judgment mandating the President to seek Supreme Court's opinion on constitutionality of bills, Union govt has said the judiciary cannot dictate to the President how and when to exercise her unfettered discretion to seek the apex court's opinion and on which issues. Faulting the April 8 judgment of a bench of justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, the Centre, through solicitor general Tushar Mehta, said a plain reading of the President's powers under Article 143 "shows that an absolute discretion lies with the President to seek advice. The term 'consult' means the act of asking for advice and indicates that the President is not bound to do so". The judgment had advised the President that whenever a governor reserves a bill for her consideration on the ground that it is patently unconstitutional, the President ought to make a reference to SC under Article 143 "as a measure of prudence", given that it is for the apex court to determine the constitutionality and legality of orders and laws. Ahead of Tuesday's hearing on the Presidential Reference before a five-judge bench led by CJI B R Gavai, the Centre said, "Any constitutional proposition of law that there exists a constitutional expectation for the President to refer every reserved bill to the Supreme Court is contrary to the constitutional scheme". It gave three reasons to repudiate the SC bench's proposition to this effect: Articles 200 and 201 envisage that the President will apply his/her own mind to decide whether to assent or withhold assent, and these provisions do not mention any role of Supreme Court under Article 143. Such a proposition presupposes that only the judiciary can decide questions related to the Constitution, whereas the Constitution contemplates that the legislature, the executive and the judiciary each is competent and authorised to interpret the Constitution within their own domain. The legislature considers the constitutionality of a bill during debate, the President or governor applies their mind while deciding whether to withhold, assent or refer a bill and the judiciary decides the legality of an Act in appropriate proceedings. Such a proposition converts a constitutional prerogative into a judicial mandate in the nature of a continuing mandamus, which is impermissible. Union govt said the Constitution does not empower the judiciary to examine the contents of a bill that is yet to become a legislation, sans assent granted by a governor or the President. "The constitutional courts cannot undertake judicial adjudication over the contents of a pending bill. It is not possible for the constitutional courts to look behind the contents of the bill at a stage wherein it is a pending decision before the governor and adjudicate whether it requires a reference to the President or not," it said. It further said a state is barred from filing petitions under Article 32, which is a preserve of citizens to seek redress of violations of their fundamental rights by directly approaching the SC. For any dispute between the state and the Centre, the parties concerned need to approach the SC through a suit under Article 131. The Centre held, "A state govt cannot file a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution against essentially the governor of the state..."
Economic Times
2 hours ago
- Economic Times
ECI begins uploading omitted voter names in Bihar
Synopsis Following a Supreme Court directive, the Election Commission of India has begun publishing lists of voters omitted from draft electoral rolls in Bihar, categorized as Absentee, Shifted, Dead, or already registered. These lists are available on district electoral officer websites, enabling verification and objection filing with Aadhaar proof. PTI New Delhi: Four days after the Supreme Court's directive, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has started publishing the names of voters omitted from the draft electoral rolls following the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in Bihar. The lists are now available on the websites of the respective district electoral officers (DEOs).The omitted voters are broadly categorised as Absentee, Shifted, and Dead (ASD), along with those marked as "Pahle Se Panjikrit" (already registered). The inclusion of EPIC numbers has made it easier for genuine voters to search for their names. As per the information available, anyone dissatisfied with their omission can file an objection, accompanied by a copy of their Aadhaar card. Initial data from Bihar's Seemanchal region shows that the number of omitted voters under each category varies significantly from booth to example, at a booth located at Madhya Vidyalaya, Dalmalpur, Uttar Bhag, in the Amour Assembly seat (Purnea district, part of Muslim-dominated Kishanganj Lok Sabha seat), out of 228 total voters, 117 have been listed under Absentee, 65 under Dead, 39 under Shifted, and 7 under Already at Madhya Vidyalaya, Champa Bareli booth in the Baisi Assembly seat, 76 voters have been marked as omitted - 38 as Absentee, 22 as Shifted, 15 as Dead, and 1 as Already Registered. At Kanya Madhya Vidyalaya, Madhbani (Uttar Bhag), located in the Purnea Assembly seat, 161 voters were listed, with 40 marked as Absentee, 82 as Dead, and 35 as opposition parties had demanded that the ECI release separate lists of voters in each of the ASD categories who were omitted from the rolls."It will now be easier for us to verify which voters do not fall under the ASD categories in different booths. There are living voters who have been marked as dead," said Abhay Sinha, Purnea district general secretary of RJD, the state's main opposition the publication of the omitted voters' list, Sinha added that the RJD's BLA 2 representatives, stationed across various booths, will now actively verify the omissions. "We have very little time for this task. We may request the ECI to extend the deadline for submission of objections and claims," he said.
