One Bar One Vote: MP High Court Refuses To Interfere With Jabalpur Bar Association's Provisional Voter List

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has refused to interfere with the ongoing election process of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association, Jabalpur, holding that a provisional voter list is only the first step of the process and cannot be struck down merely on apprehension that the final list, or the election that follows, will be unfair.

A division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Vinay Saraf was hearing a writ petition filed by advocate Alok Kumar Gupta, who intends to contest the post of General Secretary in the Association's ensuing election for the term 2026-2028. Gupta, represented by advocate Amitabh Gupta, had challenged the provisional voter list published on July 10, 2026, contending that it wrongly included the names of deceased advocates, non-practising members, and advocates who were also registered voters of the District Bar Association, Jabalpur, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates' Bar Association Samiti.

The petitioner's case rested substantially on Clause 38 of the Association's Election Bye-Laws, which he said required the outgoing Executive Committee to appoint senior members of the bar as Returning Officer at least 45 days before the expiry of its term. The Executive Committee's term had ended on May 23, 2026, but no Returning Officer had been appointed by the time the petition was filed, even as the provisional voter list was published.

The petitioner also invoked the principle of "One Bar One Vote," urging that no advocate be allowed to remain a voter of more than one bar body, and sought a direction that the provisional list be withdrawn and the entire exercise restarted after due verification under the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015. He further argued that objections he had already submitted against the list had gone unconsidered, pointing to a past election where similar objections were allegedly ignored and polls conducted on a defective list.

The respondents were represented by advocates Satyam Agarwal and Aaksh Choudhary.

The bench, after examining the Association's bye-laws, the 2015 Verification Rules, and a 2018 Division Bench ruling of the Indore Bench in Amol Shrivastava and another vs. Bar Council of India, held that the petitioner's apprehension was "misplaced," since the process of preparing the voter list had only just begun.

The court explained that a provisional list exists precisely so that objections and suggestions can be invited, after which the Returning Officer examines them, calls for the list of advocates who have opted to vote with the Jabalpur Association from the State Bar Council, and only then finalises the list. It observed that the Returning Officer, once appointed, "is empowered to finalize the voter list even as per the Bye laws of the MP High Court Bar Association (MPHBA), Jabalpur."

Rejecting the plea for pre-emptive judicial intervention, the court said past lapses could not be presumed to repeat themselves: "it cannot be presumed that in ensuing elections also, the Returning Officer will not follow the provisions of the regulation and the relevant rules."

It underlined that courts must keep their interference in bar association elections minimal, and that the burden of following the rules and bye-laws lies primarily with the office bearers, Returning Officer and Election Officers. The bench expressed hope that the Association's members, office bearers, and election machinery would act strictly in accordance with the governing framework.

Since only a provisional list had been issued at this stage, the court declined to interfere, but left the door open for the petitioner. It clarified that he remains free to raise his objections in accordance with law, and that if he does so, the Returning Officer must decide them through a speaking order before the election process moves forward.

With these observations, the writ petition was disposed of, and the election process for the term 2026-2028 will now proceed on the basis of the provisional list, subject to objections being decided by the Returning Officer.

Case Title: Alok Kumar Gupta vs. State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: July 17, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Vinay Saraf