Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
One Bar One Vote Principle - The principle mandates that each advocate should have only one vote in elections of Bar Associations to ensure fairness and prevent misuse. Several judgments and resolutions emphasize its importance as a statutory or constitutional requirement. For example, the Supreme Court in B.D. Kaushik case commended the application of one bar one vote ["2016 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7637"], and the Bar Council of India has deliberated on implementing this rule uniformly ["2022 0 Supreme(Tri) 202"].
Implementation Measures - To enforce one bar one vote, mechanisms such as identity/proximity cards have been introduced. These cards serve as proof of identity and restrict advocates to voting in a single Bar Association at a time ["2024 0 Supreme(Del) 712"], ["2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 103"]. Such measures aim to prevent advocates from voting in multiple associations or multiple times.
Legal and Judicial Support - Courts have directed adherence to the principle, emphasizing that elections must be conducted strictly following the one advocate one vote rule. Orders have mandated election authorities and Bar Associations to ensure compliance, often referencing previous judgments that uphold this principle ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 909"], ["2016 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 216"].
Challenges and Disparities - Disparities in election procedures, such as differing terms or election dates among Bar Associations, have been cited as reasons for non-implementation or partial adherence. Some judgments acknowledge the difficulty in applying the principle uniformly where internal autonomy is concerned, but stress that the rule remains fundamental ["2016 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7637"].
Statutory and Constitutional Backing - The rule has been incorporated into statutory frameworks like the Certificate and Place of Practice Rules, 2015, and recognized by the Supreme Court as a binding norm for Bar Associations across India ["2021 0 Supreme(Mad) 2782"]. The Court has also observed that violations undermine the democratic process within Bar Associations.
Exceptions and Specific Cases - In certain cases, such as after elections are concluded or in disputes over voter lists, the courts have exercised caution, emphasizing that challenges should be made through proper election petitions rather than judicial review at late stages ["2023 0 Supreme(Guj) 585"]. Additionally, the validity of votes declared invalid has been scrutinized, with courts sometimes declaring votes valid if proper procedures are followed ["2016 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 216"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The one bar one vote rule is a well-established principle supported by judicial rulings, statutory rules, and administrative measures to promote fair elections within Bar Associations. Its enforcement involves technological measures like identity cards and strict adherence to election laws. While practical challenges exist, courts consistently emphasize the importance of upholding this principle to ensure integrity, transparency, and democratic functioning of Bar elections across India. The principle’s statutory backing and judicial endorsement underscore its critical role in maintaining the credibility of Bar Association elections.
In the world of legal practice, ensuring fair and transparent elections within Bar Associations is crucial for maintaining . A common query among advocates is: judgement and detail's. This refers to a landmark ruling by the that introduced the principle, preventing advocates from voting or contesting in multiple Bar Associations' elections within a specified period. This blog post dives deep into the judgment, its implications, and how it has shaped Bar elections across jurisdictions.
Note: This article offers general information based on publicly available judgments and is not intended as specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for personalized guidance.
The principle mandates that an advocate who votes in one Bar Association's election in a given year cannot vote or contest in another Bar Association's election. Established by the in W.P.(C) 8106/2010 ( & Ors. Vs. & Ors.), decided on and modified on , it requires members to furnish a declaration confirming they have not voted in the immediately preceding election of any other Bar Association. False declarations result in a three-year suspension. This rule applies to all Delhi Bar Associations to curb multiple voting and uphold fair elections. 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 2153
Key objectives include aligning with democratic norms like and protecting the prestige of premier bodies like the Bar Association (SCBA).2011 6 Supreme 417
The Division Bench incorporated the principle into the rules of all Delhi Bar Associations, including the Bar Association and (, , , ). It directed:
A member who exercises her or his right to vote in any year in the High Court or a District Court Advocate’s/Bar Association election shall not be eligible to contest for any post - either as member of the executive or of an office Bearer of any other Association or to cast her or his vote at the election. 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 2153
Before voting, every member must provide a declaration:
I.... do hereby solemnly declare and affirm that I have not voted for and/or am not contesting for any , in any other Bar Association of which I am also a member in the last one year and that I will not do so in any election during this year in such Bar Association. 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 2153
Voter lists are prepared only from verified declarations, excluding those who voted in other associations in that year or the previous year. An , chaired by a judicial officer, verifies these and preserves records. 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 2153
Addressing varying election tenures, the court modified the rule to focus on the immediately preceding election rather than a fixed one-year period:
Every member before casting his vote shall in the prescribed form furnish a Declaration that she/he has not voted in the immediately preceding election to any other Bar Association and is not voting in any election of the Bar Association or any other Bar Association. 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 3799
The updated declaration states:
I… do hereby solemnly declare and affirm that I have not voted for and/or have not contested for any , in any other Bar Association of which I am also a member in the immediately preceding election... 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 3799
Additional safeguards include forming the three months before tenure expiry (two senior advocates + Additional District Judge as chair), displaying voter lists four weeks prior, and digitizing records for the District Judge. 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 3799
In a 2019 Court Bar Association election dispute, the court enforced the modified rule, rejecting a nomination because the advocate appeared in Bar Association's 2017 voter list (no election since). Despite a non-voting certificate, exclusion was upheld:
Based on the declaration of members, the Bar Association shall prepare, a list of voters. Only the members whose names are included as the final voters- after excluding those who had voted in elections of any other Bar Association in that year or the previous year, shall be entitled to vote... 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 2007
This illustrates strict verification based on prior lists, even without direct voting proof. 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 2007
The principle was upheld for SCBA via Rule 18 amendment:
The general statutorily recognised principle being ‘’; the resolution amending rule 18 requiring ‘’ cannot be held illegal or unconstitutional – The amended rule 18 does not affect any of the aims and objectives of the SCBA – On the contrary, it promotes and protects privileges, interest and prestige of the SCBA. 2011 6 Supreme 417
Non-active members lack voting rights, allowing membership in multiple associations but voting in only one. This aligns with the (Section 12). 2011 6 Supreme 417
The principle has influenced other jurisdictions. In Rajasthan, the directed strict adherence in Rajasthan High Court Bar Association elections:
It is also further directed that there shall not be breach of principle of and all precautions shall be taken/made by the Election Tribunal to see that the principle of shall be strictly followed... 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1863
In Punjab and Haryana, the upheld State Bar Council rules incorporating for fairness, rejecting claims of violating . 2016 0 Supreme(P&H) 2533
Maharashtra courts applied it to , requiring advocates in multiple associations to choose one for voting. 2018 0 Supreme(Bom) 1701
In Bihar, uniform model rules emphasize free and fair elections, with ad hoc committees ensuring compliance. 2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 398
A 2022 case reinforced voter lists compliant with the principle.
Bar Associations should:- Strictly form Election Committees and verify declarations.- Preserve digitized records with District Judges.
Advocates must:- Verify prior participation via certificates.- Reference preserved records for disputes.
For SCBA-like bodies, explicitly align rules with the principle. 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 3799
The judgment promotes electoral integrity, mirroring . From Delhi's courts to nationwide applications, it ensures advocates commit to one association per election cycle. Staying compliant safeguards voting rights and avoids suspensions.
References:1. 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 3799: Modifications, details.2. 2016 0 Supreme(Del) 2153: Original directions.3. 2019 0 Supreme(Del) 2007: Practical application.4. 2011 6 Supreme 417: SCBA upholding.5. 2022 0 Supreme(SC) 1863, 2016 0 Supreme(P&H) 2533, others for extensions.
#OneBarOneVote, #BarElections, #DelhiHighCourt
man one vote. ... It is stated that two Bar Associations in Delhi already provide for the rule of 'one bar one vote' but do not follow the same. ... It is submitted that the rule of one bar one vote is on the same footing as that of „one advocate one chamber. 12. ... Therefore, the concept of ONE VOTE ONE #H....
11.7 The casting of vote shall be only through the Identity Card/Proximity Card to regulate the `one bar one vote' principle. ... 11.7 The casting of vote shall be enabled only through the Identity Card/Proximity Card to regulate the "one bar one vote" principle. ... This Court is of the opinion that the above consensual directions `give flesh and blood' to the principle of `One Bar#HL....
of "One Bar One Vote". ... also the name and place of the bar association where he is entitled to cast his vote, thus, he cannot become a member or cast his vote in more than one bar association. ... This is to secure adherence to the principle of 'One Vote, One Bar Association'. 8. ... Prahlad Sharma passed in SLP NO.23009-230011/2022 and strictly follow the pr....
Dash (supra) were, firstly, incorporation of the One Bar One Vote principle in relation to every Bar in Delhi, and secondly, restriction of allotment of chamber to one Advocate in one Court complex only. ... The casting of vote shall be only through the identity card/proximity card to regulate the „one bar one vote‟ principle. 11.8. ... The Identity card/Proximity card would op....
It is also further directed that there shall not be breach of principle of One Bar One Vote and all precautions shall be taken/made by the Election Tribunal to see that the principle of One Bar One Vote shall be strictly followed and adhered to and that the aforesaid judgment(s) and order(s) passed by ... Court in the case of 'Supreme Court Bar Association and Others versus B.D. ... appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1 a contesti....
Rules to include the ‘One Bar One Vote’ rule to ensure free and fair elections. ... It was also prayed that the Bar Council of Delhi should ensure introduction of ‘One Bar One Vote’ throughout all the Bar Associations in Delhi. ... Submission that the introduction of the one man one vote rule would impair the internal autonomy of the Bar Associ....
Rather, it was a list of those members who had complied with the principle of “One Bar, One Vote”. ... List dated 26th August 2022 was prepared by the Election Committee, in line with the principle of “One Bar, One Vote” envisaged in This is a digitally signed Judgement. ... bar one more laid down by the High Court in case of P.K. ... Malhotra) is falsely representing himself to be a memb....
The village Committee of Kanuwana consists of thirty-one members. The respondent, G. Don Gilbert Goonesekera, and one Norbert Sri Vardhana are both duly elected members. On nomination day one P. ... The petitioner asserts in paragraph 15 of this affidavit that the respondent was elected by a majority of one vote-Sri Vardhana securing 15 while the respondent obtained 16 votes. ... s affidavit and the one subsequently field by the defeated candidate, Sri Vardhana, the latter? ......
The Presiding Authority did not reject one vote to be invalid on the ground that invalid vote was clearly identifiable. The reason assigned by the Presiding Authority has already been recorded in the preceding paragraphs, which would show that one vote was not declared invalid on such ground. ... Therefore, it is held that one vote which has been declared invalid by the Presiding Authority is a valid vote in accordance with R.10(4) of the Rules of 19....
(ix):- In the absence of the motion being put to vote, the legal bar of moving a fresh motion of no confidence stipulated under Section 44(3)(ii) would not be attracted. Issue No. ... to have been 'brought' and consequently, the bar of Section 44(3)(ii) is not attracted. ... with one another and the majority required to put a motion to vote is from amongst the members of the Samiti present and voting; the logical conclusion of a motion is 'voting upon' the same, and since no vo....
Viewed in the light of these facts, the concept of voting introduced by amendment of Rule 18 of the Rules and Regulations of SCBA cannot be regarded as illegal or unconstitutional." Therefore, ‘one bar one vote’ has become a statutory prescription and all the Bar Associations in India are bound by it.
The implementation of the said rule was challenged before a Civil Judge in Delhi in a civil suit. The amended Rule 18 incorporated the principle of 'One Bar, One Vote'. In the case of B. D. Kaushik (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided the question of validity of Rule 18 of the Rules and Regulations of Supreme Court Bar Association. By an interim order, the learned Civil Judge had stayed the implementation of the said rule.
In that case, a petition was filed in the Delhi High Court praying for directions from the Court that the rules governing allotment of Chambers for advocates in various court complexes should be amended to restrict eligibility to one chamber in the entire territory of Delhi, even though they may be members of more than one bar association. It was also prayed that the Bar Council of Delhi should ensure introduction of 'One Bar One Vote' throughout all the Bar Associations in Delhi. Those resisting the introduction of the 'One Bar One Vote' principle relied on the fundamental....
3. The applicants urge that while establishing the “one bar one vote” principle, the court, in the main judgment had proceeded on the assumption that there exists uniformity in respect of election tenures in the several Bar Associations across the city, which is incorrect. It is also emphasized that frequently, elections to Bar Associations are not conducted in a timely manner, often leading to extended tenures of over one year. Given these factors, the main judgment’s requirement for advocate-voters to furnish an undertaking that each of them did not vote or contest electi....
(v) The principle of “One Bar One Vote” has not been followed. (iv) The dues of many members were deposited after 11 July 2016 but this fact can be ascertained only after the account of the High Court Bar Association is made known; and
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
