Supreme Court Orders Recounting In SCBA Polls Amid Allegations of Irregularities

The Supreme Court on Monday 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 of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta 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 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 observed, making it clear that results should not be declared until a detailed report of the recount is submitted to the Court.
The directions were passed while hearing a petition filed by candidates alleging bogus voting and other electoral malpractices in the SCBA elections held on May 20.
Notably, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh was declared the winner for the post of President, defeating Senior Advocates Adish C. Aggarwala and Pradeep Kumar Rai.
Senior Advocate Rahul Kaushik and Advocate Pragya Baghel were elected Vice President and Secretary, respectively.
Amid growing scrutiny, the Court had already ordered preservation of CCTV footage from the elections.
Today, the EC's counsel noted that while recounting for the President’s post could be completed immediately, recounting for other Executive Committee posts could take 2–4 days, citing procedural difficulties.
"Let it take four days. No problem. Our official will be there—someone from the Registrar’s office,” the Bench said, while refusing to entertain oral interventions and insisting that all complaints be formally submitted to the EC.
“We are not entertaining this now. All grievances must be given in writing. The Election Committee will examine them and submit a report to us. We will take a final call thereafter,” the Court clarified.
Previously
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