SCAORA Election Row: Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Exclusion Of Newly Registered AORs From Voter List

The petition filed through AoR Vishakha assails the election notice dated April 15, 2026 issued by the SCAORA Election Committee 2026, as well as the alleged non-consideration of a representation submitted on April 17 by newly registered AORs seeking inclusion in the electoral roll. The petitioner contends that despite fulfilling all eligibility requirements under the applicable rules, their names have been excluded on what is described as a “hyper-technical” ground.

According to the plea, the petitioner and other similarly placed advocates were formally registered as Advocates-on-Record on April 16, 2026, after completing all procedural requirements, including payment of membership dues. However, their exclusion from the voter list, published on April 15 and subsequently updated on April 20, has effectively denied them the right to participate in the electoral process of the Association.

The core grievance raised in the petition is that the exclusion is based solely on the non-allotment of an AOR code, which is an administrative formality beyond the control of the applicants. The petitioner argues that this requirement is not stipulated as a condition for membership or voting rights under the relevant rules governing SCAORA.

Referring to Rule 5(ii) of Order IV of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, the plea asserts that the petitioner meets all prescribed criteria to be recognised as an Advocate-on-Record. It further points out that the SCAORA rules and regulations do not mandate possession of an AOR code as a prerequisite for membership or inclusion in the voter list. Instead, the rules only require that an individual be an AOR and a member of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

The petition also highlights an alleged inconsistency in the treatment of newly registered AORs vis-à-vis existing members. While the deadline for payment of dues for existing members was extended till April 18, no such extension was granted to newly registered AORs, despite their registration taking place only on April 16. This, the petitioner contends, has resulted in an unequal and arbitrary classification, violating principles of fairness and equality.

It is further submitted that several newly registered AORs had paid their dues on or before April 14 and possess valid payment receipts. Despite this, their names were not included in the voter list, effectively disenfranchising them from participating in the upcoming elections.

Terming the exclusion as “unfair, arbitrary, and illegal,” the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. The plea seeks issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to include the names of the petitioner and other similarly situated AORs in the voter list for the April 29 elections.

Additionally, the petitioner has sought a declaration that the non-inclusion of newly registered AORs, despite their compliance with all eligibility criteria, is unconstitutional and violative of the principles of equality.

The petition is likely to come up for consideration before the apex court in the coming days, ahead of the scheduled election date.