SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
Rajiv Khosla - Appellant
Versus
Delhi High Court Bar Association - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8197 of 2022 & CM Appl. 34021 of 2022, W.P.(C) 13027 of 2022, CM Appls. 39465-39466 of 2022, 39915-39916 of 2022 & 40005-40006 of 2022 and W.P.(C) 13030 of 2022 & CM Appls. 39473-39474 of 2022
Decided On : 12-09-2022




Election eligibility hinges on timely dues payment; provisional inclusion in electoral lists doesn't confer voting rights.

Headnote:(A) Delhi High Court Bar Association Elections - Eligibility Criteria - The petitions were filed by members contesting exclusion from the voter list due to non-payment of dues by a set cut-off date. Petitioners claimed the right to vote based on inclusion in provisional lists, which was deemed provisional and not a basis for rights. The court emphasized compliance with eligibility requirements prior to electoral processes. Directives from P.K. Dash case were reinforced as guiding principles for conducting elections. (Paras 1, 10, 18, 28)

(B) Natural Justice - The court addressed the lack of notice regarding exclusion, but upheld that it aligns with established norms promoting timely payment and responsibility amongst members. (Paras 26, 29)

Facts of the case:
The court examined petitions by two individuals and one representing adherence to prior judgments regarding election conduct and eligibility. They sought to rectify removal from the electoral list after outstanding dues were not settled by the stipulated deadline.

Findings of Court:
The exclusion was deemed valid based on the failure to meet the payment cut-off date set prior to elections, and the election process was to be respected without alteration to rules post hoc.

Issues: The main questions related to eligibility criteria tied to dues and procedural fairness in notifying affected members.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that provisional lists do not confer rights, reaffirming the principle that members must meet clear criteria to vote, thereby maintaining the integrity of electoral processes.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. prerequisites for eligibility as a voter. (Para 1 , 3)
2. petitioners argue for enforcement of voting rights. (Para 4 , 5)
3. process of verifying voter eligibility. (Para 6 , 10 , 11)
4. importance of adhering to cut-off dates for voting. (Para 12 , 16)
5. interpretation of voting eligibility rules. (Para 20 , 22 , 26)
6. court's dismissal of petitions. (Para 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)--In the backdrop of forthcoming elections for the Executive Committee of the Delhi High Court Bar Association ["DHCBA"] scheduled for 29th September 2022, Petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 13027/2022 (Mr. S.C. Malhotra) and W.P. (C) No. 13030/2022 (Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh), who are members of the DHCBA, are aggrieved with deletion of their names from the list of eligible voters. They seek time to pay their outstanding dues in terms of rules/resolutions/guidelines/constitution of the DHCBA, and to be included in the electoral roll. Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 8197/2022 (Mr. Rajiv Khosla) is seeking implementation and strict compliance of the judgment dated 31st May, 2016 and order dated 18th October, 2016, both in W.P.(C) 8106/2010 titled P.K. Dash, Advocate & Ors. v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors., as well as of the extant rules and regulations of DHCBA, in light of which, he seeks directions to DHCBA to: (i) follow the mode of payment of subscription for voting rights; (ii) constitute Election Commission as per the directions in P.K. Dash (supra); and (iii) conduct elections in a timely manner.

2. Counsels for DHCBA and the Election Commission have handed over some documents containing the election schedule, resolutions and notices of DHCBA, and brief submissions - all of which are taken on record. Considering the common grounds urged, afore-noted documents shall be treated as part of the record in each of the cases.

FACTS

3. The factual background of the present dispute is as follows:

3.1. On 06th August 2022, a list titled: `Consolidated Provisional List Of Eligible And Ineligible Advocates/Voters Of The DHCBA Election, 2022' was notified by the Election Committee of DHCBA [hereinafter, "Provisional List"]. List-A annexed thereto contained tabulated particulars of 9173 members with a `yes'/`no' against their name in the last column titled `Whether provisionally entitled to vote'. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh was at serial number 7173 and Mr. S.C. Malhotra was at serial number 4111, with a `yes' against their names.

3.2. As per resolution of the DHCBA dated 09th August 2022, cut-off date for payment of arrears of subscription till 30th June 2022, was fixed as 22nd August 2022 upto 5:00 P.M. [hereinafter, "cut-off date"].

3.3. Thereafter, on 26th August, 2022, a list titled: `Final List for the forthcoming DHCBA Election-2022' was issued by the Election Committee of DHCBA, which was uploaded on the Delhi High Court website on 30th August, 2022 [hereinafter, "List dated 26th August 2022"]. The said list was accompanied with: (i) a cover letter dated 26th August 2022, signed by the Election Committee, (ii) Annexure A containing the findings of the Committee qua 824 objections received by it to the Provisional List, (iii) Annexure-B titled: `Consolidated List Of Eligible And Ineligible Advocates/Voters Of The Delhi High Court Bar Association Election-2022' containing tabulated particulars of 9173 members with a `yes'/`no' against their name in the last column titled `Whether entitled to vote'. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh was at serial number 7173 and Mr. S.C. Malhotra was at serial number 4111, with a `yes' against their names.

3.4. On 29th/30th August, 2022, after verification of clearance of dues by the Election Commission, a list of 6444 voters, titled: `List Of Eligible Advocates/Voters Of The Delhi High Court Bar Association Election-2022' was uploaded on the website of DHCBA [hereinafter, "List dated 30th August 2022"]. In this list, the names of Mr. S.C. Malhotra and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Singh did not feature at all.

3.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top