"Suffers From Vice Of Natural Justice": MP High Court Quashes Sagar Bar Association Poll Recount Order

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside an order directing a recount of votes for the post of President, District Advocates Association, Sagar, holding it was passed without giving the winning candidate any opportunity to be heard, in violation of natural justice.

A Division Bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B. P. Sharma was hearing a writ petition filed by advocate Ankleshwar Dubey, who had been declared elected President of the District Advocates Association, Sagar, after securing 573 votes in counting conducted on August 22, 2026. Dubey had challenged an order dated August 25, 2026, passed by the Special Committee (Appeals) of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, directing a recount in an appeal filed against the result.

According to the order, 1350 votes were cast in the election, but 1355 ballot papers were found during counting, raising suspicion of mischief. The Returning Officer accordingly decided to recount the votes. However, before the recount could be carried out, a mob entered the Returning Officer's office and, under duress, forced the recall of the recounting order. This became the basis for respondent No. 3's appeal before the Special Committee, culminating in the impugned order directing a fresh recount.

Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha, appearing via video conferencing with Senior Advocate Rameshwar Thakur and advocate Rohit Sohgaura for the petitioner, had argued that the State Bar Council had no authority over the manner and procedure of an election conducted by a District Bar Association. Senior Advocate Prakash Upadhyay, assisted by Hitendra Kumar Golhani, appeared for respondents No.1 and 2, while advocate Ashish Kumar Kurmi represented respondent No.3, both relying on the model bylaws issued by the State Bar Council to defend the Special Committee's order.

During the hearing, the court noted that the petitioner had not been granted any opportunity of hearing before the recount order was passed, and suggested that the matter be reheard so all concerned parties could place their grievances before the Special Committee. All sides agreed to this course of action.

Recording this, the bench observed, "Considering the same, impugned order dated 25.08.2026, as it suffers from vice of natural justice, is hereby set aside." The petitioner and respondents No. 3 and 4 were granted liberty to appear before the Special Committee, which was directed to "hear the concerned parties, their pleadings and arguments as per law and thereafter ensure passing of a reasoned order under due intimation to the parties." The matter was remanded to the Special Committee for fresh consideration.

The court also made it clear that the election result would remain undeclared until the dispute is finally resolved. "Till issue is decided, result shall not be declared," the bench ordered, directing the Special Committee to decide the case "as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 15 days" of the order. It further directed that ballot papers and other election material be secured with the Returning Officer, and gave the Special Committee liberty to examine any evidence produced or call for material relevant to the disputed election.

With these directions, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, leaving the dispute over the Sagar bar body's presidential election to be decided afresh by the Special Committee, this time after hearing all the parties involved, including the candidate whose victory had triggered the challenge in the first place.

Case Title: Ankleshwar Dubey v. State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: September 3, 2026

Bench: Justice Anand Pathak and Justice B.P. Sharma