Supreme Court Orders Recount Of SCBA Executive Member Votes; Urges Decorum And Transparency

A Special Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan presided over the proceedings, which saw robust submissions from Senior Advocates, including former SCBA President Dr. Adish Aggarwala and Runner-up candidate Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai.

At the outset, Justice Surya Kant cautioned all advocates present to maintain the dignity and decorum expected of the Bar. “We can sit till midnight if needed, but please do not get agitated. Things are being recorded and can easily go viral,” the he warned, underscoring the importance of responsible advocacy in sensitive election matters.

Dr. Aggarwala requested certain questions be addressed in chamber, but the Bench insisted on hearing submissions openly to preserve transparency. “Even if you have reservations, your remarks must remain respectful and avoid sweeping allegations,” Justice Kant reminded the Senior Counsel.

Dr. Aggarwala highlighted concerns over alleged vote solicitation by one candidate, Vikas Singh, after the debate had ended.

However, Justice Kant noted that aspect might have been addressed earlier and refocused the hearing on ensuring the transparency and fairness of the elections.

Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai, who contested for the SCBA President’s post, presented the crux of the petition. Rai revealed that a recount conducted the previous day showed a total of 2,576 votes, significantly fewer than the 2,651 votes officially declared on May 20.

A troubling allegation was raised regarding voter duplication: Rai recounted an incident where a voter named Chandan Kumar reportedly found his vote already cast before he arrived to vote and was nevertheless allowed to vote again after intervention by another individual. Rai suggested multiple such instances could have inflated vote counts.

Justice Kant pressed for documentary proof of such occurrences and was informed that there were at least two voters named Chandan Kumar, complicating the verification process.

Rai further disclosed that over 2,593 ballot papers had been issued, calling into question the declared total of 2,651 votes.

Despite these discrepancies, Rai was careful to emphasize that no suspicion was cast on the integrity of the Election Committee (EC) members themselves, describing them as dignified and trustworthy.He suggested that a re-election would be the most dignified solution to maintain confidence in the process, echoing sentiments expressed by aggrieved members.

Election Committee Responds to Allegations

Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, representing the Election Committee, expressed hurt over allegations that his team was biased or partial, particularly comments branding them as a “cricket team” of a particular candidate.

Justice Kant lightheartedly advised not to take Dr. Aggarwala’s remarks too seriously.

Hansaria detailed the factual position on vote counting and admitted to a “bona fide calculation error” that, according to him, did not affect the election outcome. He further confirmed that 19 representations had been received by the EC, including one against Dr. Aggarwala himself, alleging distribution of gifts to influence voters.

The Court inquired whether any ballot papers meant for the President’s post were mistakenly found in boxes for other posts. Hansaria acknowledged one such ballot paper was discovered during scrutiny of Executive Member posts.

While the EC had proposed a recount for certain posts due to these irregularities, Hansaria noted no objections had been received concerning the posts of Vice President, Secretary, Joint Secretary, or Treasurer.

Court Advocates Respect and Recognition for Election Committee

Justice Kant, along with Justice Viswanathan, acknowledged the demanding and often thankless task of the Election Committee. Justice Viswanathan reminded all parties of the physical and mental toll on EC members, who work long hours under intense pressure and occasional abuse.

Addressing Dr. Aggarwala, Justice Kant warned that threatening or browbeating tactics would deter capable individuals from taking up the important responsibility of managing SCBA elections.

The Court further reassured EC members of its support, emphasizing that no baseless allegations would be entertained and that their conduct had shown independence and impartiality akin to a tribunal.

Court Orders Recount of Executive Member Posts

Recognizing concerns raised by various members, the Court directed that recounting be conducted not only for the presidential votes but also for the nine Executive Member posts, which largely comprise younger Bar members whose morale should not be undermined.

Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani informed the Court that only 14 complaints had been received related to the Executive Member elections. Hansaria emphasized that the recount would require at least three full days and should be overseen by an independent agency, cautioning against involving Bar volunteers to ensure impartiality.

The Court ordered the recount to take place immediately after the courts reopen following the Partial Working Days (PWD) holiday, when all Election Committee members would be available. The Court said that it will provide adequate staffing support for the recount process.

"Candidates or their nominees are permitted to observe the recounting but must not interfere, ensuring a transparent and orderly exercise," the Bench ordered. 

Previously

It is to be noted that on May 26, the Supreme Court had directed a recount of votes cast in the recently held Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections, including for the post of President, following allegations of voting irregularities such as votes exceeding the number of ballots issued. The Bench was informed by the counsel representing the SCBA Election Committee (EC) that a recount was being proposed in light of serious concerns raised by contesting candidates. The EC had also requested that the Supreme Court Registrar General be appointed as an observer to ensure fairness in the recount process, a suggestion which the Court readily accepted.

“Let no candidate have any doubt. Let there be recounting for all elections wherever there is a complaint,” the Bench had observed, making it clear that results should not be declared until a detailed report of the recount is submitted to the Court.

Earlier, on May 22, the Supreme Court had said that it is a matter of pride for it that three women lawyers were elected as senior executive members of the Supreme Court Bar Association whose elections were held two days back on May 20. With this view, the Court had refused to interfere with the election of Senior Executive members of the SCBA.

The issue was mentioned in the morning before a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh which exclaimed that the matter was becoming a burden for the court now. "Make a mention when matter comes..", Justice Kant went on to direct the counsel before it.

The Court while hearing a plea challenging the elections on the ground that the principle laid down in the judgment of SCBA vs. BD Kaushik were not followed told the counsel, "Let's not be very greedy now..our object was to ensure representation...it is only if the women candidates do not make it to the list then you keep going down..this is a matter of pride for us that three women have made it on merit..very graciously the bar has been accepting our suggestions..this time even the secretary is a woman..".

The Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and KV Vishwanathan had further told the petitioner before it, "Counsel your understanding of the order is wrong..We are proud that three of our sisters have made it..we want your representation..we want that women must have that instinct to compete..I will not use the word reservation..you need representation..if you win very good, otherwise there has to be women representation..".

Referring to the elections last year, court clarified that last year the problem was that women were not getting elected. "This time very effective representation has come..this shows a very liberal and pragmatic approach. The bar has gone on the merit of the candidates and not if they are male or female..", it had added.

While concluding the matter for the day, the Court had said that the petition will now be taken up in July post the vacations when other administrative issues would be considered. The bench has also asked lawyers to put in their suggestions in the meantime.

Case Title: SCBA v. BD Kaushik