Back
Fast-Tracks Bar Council Election Disputes with Two New Tribunals
A Judicial Push for in Professional Elections
In a landmark order delivered on , the of India has taken decisive action to address the growing volume of litigation surrounding State Bar Council elections. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi constituted two additional to ensure of disputes arising from the ongoing electoral process across various .
The Court's Response to Mounting Election Challenges
The judgment emerged from a batch of challenging election-related irregularities in multiple . The petitions, filed by Savita Devi @ Savita Dhanda & Ors. against the & Ors. , raised concerns about electoral counting processes, reservation mechanisms, and alleged procedural violations during the State Bar Council elections.
During a previous hearing on
, the Court had already indicated its intention to explore establishing additional tribunals. The current order represents the Court's formal response to what it termed
"the large volume of election-related disputes emerging from the
State Bar Council elections."
"In addition to the existing
, we hereby constitute two more tribunals"
This directive came in recognition of the need for specialized judicial bodies to handle the technical nature of election disputes while preventing the regular courts from becoming overwhelmed with election litigation.
Composition of the New Tribunals
The appointed distinguished retired judges to head the new adjudicatory bodies:
First Tribunal
- Chairperson: Justice Deepak Gupta, former Judge of
- Member: Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, former Chief Justice,
- Member:
Second Tribunal - Chairperson: Justice Hima Kohli, former Judge of
- Member: Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, former Chief Justice,
- Member:
These tribunals will operate alongside the existing tribunal headed by former judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia , creating a three-pronged mechanism to handle the surge in election disputes.
Court's Directions: A Clear Path Forward
The judgment contains several operative directions that will shape the resolution process:
For the
:
-
"The
is directed to obtain their formal consent and notify the constitution of these Tribunals within three days"
For Aggrieved Parties:
-
"The aggrieved parties shall be at liberty to submit their respective claims before these Tribunal(s)"
-
"We request the Tribunal(s) to decide all the issues, including
, expeditiously"
For
:
-
"All the
are directed to keep the records intact till the election disputes are finally decided by the Tribunal(s)"
Behind Closed Doors: A Heated Exchange
The proceedings were marked by a notable verbal exchange that underscored the tensions surrounding these elections. According to court observers and media reports, , appearing for the petitioners, and Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra engaged in a sharp exchange during the hearing.
Das raised concerns about the 's role in the election process and objected to the inclusion of a representative in the proposed supervisory committee. Mishra responded to these allegations, describing them as "very very bad" and later as "absurd allegations."
Das clarified that her comments were not personal in nature, noting that such exchanges were common between them as both belonged to the same State. The Chief Justice diffused the situation by observing that
"both counsel had made significant contributions to the important issue concerning the conduct of Bar Council elections."
Key Issues at Stake
The petitions before the Court raised several critical questions:
-
Counting Process Concerns: Advocate Kumud Lata Das argued that the Hare-Clark system of counting had allegedly not been properly followed, and that the elimination process after first preference votes had distorted both the reservation mechanism and final election results.
-
Women's Representation: The issue of 30% representation for women in came up for discussion. The bone of contention centered on the "co-option" mechanism, which allows up to 10% of seats to be filled by women if an insufficient number are elected through the standard process.
-
Petitioner's Special Claim: In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 614/ , the petitioner's claim to have secured
"the highest votes amongst the unsuccessful candidates"
was flagged for expedited examination.
Key Observations from the Judgment
The Court's order contains several pivotal observations that highlight its approach:
"These matters were heard in part on, and were adjourned to explore the possibility of the constitution of one or twofor the purpose of speedy adjudication of the disputes arising from the ongoing elections of different."
"We hereby constitute two more tribunals... We request the Tribunal(s) to decide all the issues, including, expeditiously."
"We may hasten to add that the petitioner's (in W.P. (Civil) No. 614/) claim to have secured the highest votes amongst the unsuccessful candidates shall also be examined expeditiously."
Implications for Bar Council Elections
This judgment establishes an important precedent for the adjudication of professional body elections in India. The creation of specialized tribunals headed by retired judges signals the 's commitment to:
- Specialized Adjudication: Recognizing that election disputes require technical expertise and focused attention
- Speedy Resolution: Preventing prolonged litigation from undermining the electoral process and democratic functioning of professional bodies
- Record Preservation: Ensuring evidence remains available for thorough examination
- Neutral Oversight: Involving retired judges who bring independence to the adjudicatory process
The Road Ahead
With the now disposed of and pending applications closed, all aggrieved parties must approach the newly constituted tribunals with their grievances. The three-day deadline for the to notify the tribunals' constitution sets a tight timeline for operationalizing these bodies.
The Court's emphasis on suggests that these disputes will be resolved quickly, potentially establishing important precedents for future Bar Council elections across India. As the tribunals begin their work, the legal community awaits to see how these specialized bodies will handle the complex electoral disputes that have challenged the professional bar in .
This intervention by the demonstrates the judiciary's active role in ensuring transparent and fair electoral processes within self-regulatory professional bodies, reinforcing the principle that professional elections, like public elections, demand judicial scrutiny and accountability.
