The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Election Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the election petition under Rule 11(c) of the 2015 Rules and Section 15(3) of the Advocates Act. The judgment also emphasizes the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 48A of the Advocates Act and the justification for ordering re-poll to ensure the purity of the election process.

G.S. SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 04.07.2016 (Annexure P-7) whereby a three Member Election Tribunal of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana-respondent no. 2 has allowed the election petition filed by respondent no. 3 and set aside the result declared by the Returning Officer-respondent no. 6 qua the post of the President of the District Bar Association, Karnal (in short 'DBA, Karnal') held on 23.05.2016. Accordingly, re-poll for the post of the President had been directed which was to be held on 11.07.2016 by constituting a Three Member Team of the Advocates of the District Bar Association, Karnal as Returning Officers and Assistant Returning Officers. The re-poll was to be done on the basis of the original voter list of 1394 voters which was prepared on 20.05.2016 as per the record produced on 02.07.2016. An independent observer was also appointed under whose supervision the election was to be held and to get the videography of the entire election process conducted including the counting of the votes and a request was made for proper security arrangements at the venue of the election by requesting the police authorities, Karnal.

2. Respondent no. 3-election petitioner had preferred the petition under Rule 11(c) of the Bar Association (Constitution and Registration) Rules, 2015 (in short 2015 Rules') filed on 24.05.2016 (Annexure P-1) on the ground that in the elections held on 23.05.2016, he had also contested for the post of the President and had polled 463 votes whereas the present petitioner had polled 462 votes. It was his case that he had won by a margin of one vote and had also been garlanded and his statement had been taken. On account of the conduct of the Returning Officer, who had called the present petitioner into the counting hall and thereafter closed the doors and declared him elected within 15 minutes as winner by margin of one vote, the election petition was filed on the ground that the same was in connivance with the said Returning Officer. His request for recounting had not been taken into consideration and he had been assaulted and manhandled and he had placed reliance upon the C.D. attached with the petition. It is also his case that 35 votes more had been illegally added in the additional voter list and the rules did not permit the admission of the votes without notice to the contestants.

3. The stand of the present petitioner in the written statement dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure P-4) and defence was that the allegations of corrupt practice have not been mentioned and the rules under which the election petition had been filed was under challenge before this Court and, therefore, the proceedings should be adjourned sine die. The election petitioner had never been declared as elected by the Returning Officer nor any press note had been issued and no document had been attached by the petitioner that he had been elected. The election petition was liable to be dismissed as the same had not been filed as per the procedure prescribed for filing the election petition and neither the relevant affidavits had been attached. It was his case that the election petitioner had tried to enter in the administrative block of the Bar Association when the counting was going on and his supporters had also gathered just to create nuisance. They had unnecessarily raised cries that they had won and the media persons had come on spot. But when the Returning Officer had declared the result, they had left the place and gone away. No complaint had been filed before any authority and the petitioner had been declared the winner. The documents which had been placed on record after the filing of election petition could not be read as evidence and could not be treated as part and parcel of the election petition. The factum of the margin of one vote inter se the parties had been denied on the ground that the chart had been wrongly prepared on the basis of presumption and assumption and no record had b