1. Interlocutory applications seeking modifications to election schedules, impleadment, and directions regarding the conduct of State Bar Council elections. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 105
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.
Ajayinder Sangwan and Ors. – Petitioner(s)
Versus
Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. – Respondent(s)
TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO. 126 OF 2015
Decided On : 5-02-2018
Important Points
The Court upheld the Bar Council of India's authority in scheduling State Bar Council elections and constituting oversight committees, refusing to modify schedules for court holidays or allow out-of-state voting, though it permitted a date change for Kerala based on specific local festival circumstances.
Subject
Election - Bar Council Election
Headnote
Bar Council of India – Elections to Bar Councils – Verification of Advocates’ LLB degrees – Universities taking long time – Advocates permitted to participate in elections pending verification by Universities – Appropriate action directed in case Law degrees are not found valid. (Para 8)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Requests for neutral oversight committees, rescheduling of election dates due to festivals or holidays, voting in alternative locations, and inclusion in electoral rolls. (Para 3 , 6 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 14 )
3. The court evaluated the adequacy of existing oversight committees, the validity of reasons for rescheduling, and the necessity of adhering to finalized election schedules and documentation requirements. (Para 4 , 7 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 )
4. Finalized election schedules and established oversight committees shall not be altered absent compelling grounds, and electoral eligibility depends on the submission of original documentation. (Para 4 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
5. Applications for neutral committees, voting location changes, rescheduling for holidays, and electoral inclusion were rejected; the election date for one state was pre-poned. (Para 5 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 16 )
6. Can a court replace a Bar Council-constituted committee of retired judges with another neutral committee?
No, if the existing committee consists of retired Chief Justices or Judges of High Courts, there is no good ground to constitute another committee in its place. (Para 4 )
7. Can election dates be rescheduled due to public holidays or festivals?
Rescheduling may be granted considering special facts and circumstances, such as festival days, but general court holidays are not considered sufficient ground to defer a fixed election date. (Para 7 , 8 , 11 )
8. Are advocates permitted to cast votes in a different state from where they are registered on the electoral roll?
Once the election schedule is finalized, advocates are generally not permitted to cast their votes in a state other than the one where they are registered. (Para 10 )
9. Is the submission of documents sufficient for inclusion in the electoral roll if original copies are missing?
No, failure to provide original documents is a valid ground for excluding a candidate's name from the electoral roll. (Para 12 )
ORDER
R.K. Agrawal, J.
1) A bunch of Interlocutory Applications for clarification / impleadment / direction / intervention / appropriate orders / modification, in the lead matter, has been filed after the order passed by this Court on 14.12.2017, is being disposed of by this common order.
2) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
IA Nos. 14049, 14055, 14059 and 14062 of 2018
3) The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that learned Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu, who is ex-officio member of the State Bar Council, has written a letter dated 15.01.2018 expressing apprehension on his ability to conduct free and fair elections to the State Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. It was also brought to the attention of this Court the order dated 23.01.2018 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court wherein the court had come to the conclusion for appointment of a neutral committee of retired Judges either of the Supreme Court of India or of the Madras High Court to oversee the election. However, the court did not pass any order as the matter was pending before this Court.
4) In the application for directions filed on behalf of the BCI dated 23.01.2018, it has been stated that the Tribunal/Committees have been constituted to oversee the elections to be held by the respective State Bar Councils. So far as the elections to be held for the Bar Council to the State of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is concerned, the Committee constituted by the BCI consists of the following persons, namely, Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Gupta, former Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court, Hon’ble Mr. Justice T. Sudanthiram, former Judge, Madras High Court and Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.D. Gyani, former Judge, Madhya Pradesh High Court. The aforementioned Committee has been entrusted to look into the affairs of the elections to the State Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The Committee consists of retired Chief Justice/Judges of various High Courts and we do not find any good ground to constitute any another Committee in its place.
5) For the reasons mentioned above, the interlocutory applications are accordingly dismissed.
IA Nos. 9727 and 7520 of 2018
6) By these two applications, the applicants, who are practicing advocates in the State of Kerala seek impleadment as also modification of the election schedule finalized by the BCI.
7) In view of the application for directions filed on behalf of the BCI on 23.01.2018, the election schedule for the State of Kerala has been fixed and the date of election is notified as 25.03.2018. Learned counsel appearing for the applicants contended that the day of election though being Sunday, is a festival day celebrated in the State and therefore, it would not be possible for the majority of the voters to cast their vote. A request was made to pre-pone the date of election from 25.03.2018 to 18.03.2018.
8) Considering the special facts and circumstances of the case, we pre-pone the date of election for Bar Council of Kerala from 25.03.2018 to 18.03.2018, however, rest of the election schedule, as finalized by the BCI, will remain the same. The applications are disposed of accordingly.
IA Nos. 11955 and 11959 of 2018
9) By the above two applications, the applicants seek a direction to the BCI and the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa to permit the advocates of these States, who are on the electoral rolls, to cast their vote at New Delhi. Further, all the applicants hail from Maharashtra and Goa and have settled in Delhi for the purpose of legal practice. A reference has been invited to the Resolution passed by the BCI wherein the BCI has requested learned Secretary General of this Court to consider providing sufficient space to enable the advocates who are registered with different State Bar Councils and are on the electoral lists of the respective State Bar Councils to cast their votes at New Delhi itself. However, no response has been received by the BCI so far.
10) Owing
