Back
Quashes Sagar Bar for Violation
The has set aside an order directing a recount of votes for the post of President of the , holding that the order was passed in violation of the .
A Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B. P. Sharma on , allowed a filed by , who had been declared elected President after securing 573 votes in the counting held on . Dubey challenged the order of the of the , which had directed a recount.
The Dispute Over 1355 Ballots
The controversy arose when 1355 ballot papers were found during counting, while only 1350 votes were cast. The Returning Officer initially decided to recount, but a mob allegedly entered his office and forced him to withdraw the . This led respondent No. 3 to appeal before the Special Committee, which passed the impugned without hearing Dubey.
'No Hearing, No Recount'
, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the order was arbitrary and passed behind the petitioner's back, violating . He also questioned the State Bar Council's authority over District Bar Association elections.
The court observed the
and suggested a
to all parties.
"All parties agreed to proposition that if parties concerned are given
to ventilate their grievances and address the issues raised, then they would be satisfied,"
the bench noted.
Court's Reasoning and Directions
The bench unequivocally held:
"Considering the same, impugned order dated 25.08.2026, as it suffers from
, is hereby set aside."
The matter was to the Special Committee with a direction to hear all concerned parties and pass a in accordance with law, preferably within 15 days. The court also ordered that the election result shall remain undeclared until the dispute is finally resolved, and directed that ballot papers and election material be secured with the Returning Officer.
This ruling reinforces the fundamental requirement of before any is passed in , ensuring that even like the State Bar Council adhere to .
