Back
Bans Posters, Processions, Food at Oudh Bar Elections, Citing Supreme Court Precedent
The has issued a stern set of directions governing the upcoming 2026-27 elections of the , prohibiting candidates from pasting posters, taking out processions, or distributing food items within the High Court premises. A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla further extended the ban to the distribution of handbills and pamphlets to Bar members both inside the court compound and within a 100-metre radius outside the premises. The order, passed while considering an application seeking modification of an earlier PIL, underscores the Court's resolve to preserve the dignity and decorum of the court environment during the electoral process.
Background: A History of Regulating Bar Elections
The present directions build upon a series of judicial interventions aimed at curbing practices that compromise the sanctity of court premises. In , the had issued a comprehensive set of guidelines for elections, which included prohibitions on canvassing through visiting cards, cards, pamphlets, or posters, and barred the distribution of lunch packets, refreshments, or similar items before or during polling. Those directions also empowered the to formulate a formal code of conduct and stipulated that members found distributing such items could be debarred from contesting.
A challenging those directions was filed before the in
, but was dismissed, effectively approving the High Court's earlier order. The current Bench explicitly referenced that dismissal, noting that the Supreme Court had
"approved the directions and observations"
made by the High Court, thereby lending additional weight to the regulatory framework now being reinforced.
The Immediate Trigger: An Application to Modify
The latest order arose from an application filed in WPIL No. 177 of 2026, which sought to restrain candidates from pasting stickers, banners, or hoardings both inside and outside the High Court premises. The applicant also demanded a halt to the blocking of roads by erecting tents and a ban on distributing food items within the court compound, especially on election day. The applicant argued that such conduct
"not only sullies the aesthetics of building/premises but even otherwise is impermissible"
—a submission the Bench found persuasive.
Rather than modifying the disposed PIL, the Court decided to register a separate PIL titled In Re: Conduct of Elections to the . The Bench directed this new PIL to be listed on , alongside the PIL, to ensure a consolidated hearing. In the interim, the Senior Registrar of the High Court has been ordered to conduct an inquiry, including photography and videography of relevant areas inside and outside the premises, to document any posters or stickers that may have been affixed. The Registrar must submit a report to the Court containing the names and other details of the candidates responsible for such displays.
Specific Prohibitions and Consequences
The Court's order is notable for its specificity. It directed all candidates whose posters or stickers had been pasted or affixed anywhere inside or outside the High Court premises to immediately remove them. Going forward, no candidate shall:
- take out a procession within the High Court premises in connection with the Oudh Bar election;
- distribute food items within the premises; or
- distribute handbills and pamphlets to members of the Bar inside the High Court compound and within 100 metres outside the premises.
Violation of these directions carries severe consequences. The Court made clear that any breach would entail debarment from being considered for the elections and may also lead to other penalties, including reference of the matter to the or such other action as the Court may consider necessary. This creates a strong deterrent against non-compliance, particularly given the explicit threat of disqualification.
Reference to Supreme Court Precedents on Courtroom Dignity
In support of its order, the Bench cited two key Supreme Court decisions. First, it reiterated the observations from
, where the Apex Court emphasized that there was no room for
"procession in the court premises, slogan raising in the courts, use of loudspeakers"
or any conduct that disturbs the peaceful, respectful, and dignified functioning of the Court. This principle was directly applied to the Oudh Bar election context, reinforcing that the electioneering must not impinge upon the solemnity of the judicial environment.
Second, the Court noted the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP in Amit Sachan , which validated the earlier directions. By tying the current prohibitions to these precedents, the Bench underscored that the restrictions are not novel but rather a consistent application of established legal principles governing the conduct of lawyers within court precincts.
Constructive Suggestions from the Bar
During the hearing, members of the Bar offered two practical suggestions to facilitate a fair and orderly election. The first was the revival of a "Know Your Candidate" (KYC) program, which had been conducted during the previous election. Under this program, candidates contesting different posts would address the members, enabling voters to make informed choices. The Returning Officer, R.B.S. Rathor, who was present before the Court, stated that he would consider the suggestion and do the needful.
The second suggestion proposed that the Returning Officer or the could use Bar funds to provide food to voters on polling day, thereby eliminating the need for candidates to distribute refreshments—a practice that the Court has now banned. The Returning Officer indicated that he would explore this suggestion in consultation with the . These proposals reflect a cooperative approach between the Bench and the Bar to ensure that the elections are conducted transparently and without any undue influence.
Legal Implications and Broader Impact
This order has significant implications for the conduct of bar elections across the country, particularly in High Court premises. By explicitly prohibiting processions, food distribution, and pamphlet distribution, the has set a stringent standard that other High Courts may follow. The reference to Supreme Court precedents makes it clear that the judiciary expects lawyers to maintain the highest standards of decorum even when engaging in democratic processes within court precincts.
For legal practitioners, the order serves as a reminder that the privilege of practicing law carries with it the responsibility to uphold the dignity of the institution. The threat of debarment from contesting elections is a powerful enforcement mechanism, and the Court's willingness to refer matters to the Bar Council adds an additional layer of accountability. The order also highlights the role of the Senior Registrar in proactively monitoring compliance, which may deter future violations.
From a procedural standpoint, the registration of a new PIL ensures that the Court retains supervisory jurisdiction over the entire election process. The consolidated hearing on will likely result in a more comprehensive framework, possibly including the adoption of the KYC program and the use of Bar funds for voter refreshments.
Conclusion
The 's latest directions represent a firm stance against electioneering practices that undermine the sanctity of court premises. By banning posters, processions, food distribution, and pamphleteering, and by threatening debarment for violations, the Court has sent a clear message that bar elections must be conducted with dignity and propriety. The inclusion of constructive suggestions from the Bar, such as the KYC program and centralized food arrangements, indicates a collaborative path forward. As the matter awaits further hearing on , the legal community will be watching closely to see how the and Returning Officer implement these directives. The order stands as a significant contribution to the evolving jurisprudence on the conduct of lawyers within the hallowed halls of justice.
