In The High Court At Calcutta

CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon‟ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul)

WPA 334 of 2026

Gautam Das

Vs.

The High Powered Election Committee, 12

th

Bar Council of West

Bengal Election, 2026 & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Soumya Majumder, ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Bikramaditya Ghosh

Mr. Mayank Bhandari

Mr. Ved Rai

Mr. Vivek Saha

Mr. Binayak Bandopadhyay

For rest of the respondent : Mr. Bijoy Bikram Das.

For the Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Sagar Bandyopadhyay.

Judgment reserved on : 26.02.2026

Judgment delivered on : 02.03.2026

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. :

1. Affidavit-of-service filed be kept with the record.

2. The writ application has been preferred praying for direction

upon the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 to immediately undertake

appropriate corrective measures by thoroughly revising and

Page 2

revisiting the final electoral roll published for the Jalpaiguri Bar

Association Booth for the 12

th

Election of Members of the Bar

Council of West Bengal.

3. It is submitted by Mr. Majumder, learned senior counsel

appearing for the petitioner, that the final electoral role published

for the Jalpaiguri Bar Association Booth, for the 12

th

Election of

Members of Bar Council of West Bengal, suffers from gross

irregularity in view of the fact that the documents filed,

substantiate that a case as has been made out by the petitioner

herein that the learned Advocates who are members of the Bar

Association(s) and are voters, who will vote as members of the

Murshidabad Bar Association are also figuring in the voter list of

Jalpaiguri Bar Association and Siliguri Bar Association and vis-à-

vis.

4. It is further submitted that when one member of an Association

is entitled to cast only a single vote, the names of the members

from Murshidabad Bar Association and Siliguri Bar Association

who are also shown as voters in the other electoral lists of the

other Bar Associations also figures as voters in the final electoral

roll published for Jalpaiguri Bar Association, which if left to

remain shall prejudice the rights of the petitioner herein, who is

contesting the election of the Bar Council of West Bengal, as the

Page 3

name of a single voter also appears as a voter in multiple

lists of the several Bar Association.

5. It is further stated that from the list of voters as published, it

prima facie appears that at least 81 names are appearing in Part-

1 and Part-2 of the final electoral roll for the Jalpaiguri Bar

Association Booth, who are permanent residents of Murshidabad

District and have no connection and/or Association with the

Jalpaiguri Bar Association in spite of the fact that they are also

not members of the Jalpaiguri Bar Association. But unfortunately

the names figure in the final electoral roll as eligible voters for

Jalpaiguri Bar Association Booth.

6. It further appears that several names have been repeated in the

final electoral roll in spite of the fact that each voter is entitled to

cast only one vote and, as such, the said electoral roll is to be

reviewed thoroughly to remove the said serious discrepancies.

7. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that though

the last date of registering a complaint as to publication of final

voter list has expired, the respondent no. 1 has entertained the e-

mail communication dated 24

th

February, 2026 sent by the

petitioner herein and an enquiry has been conducted by his

office.

8. A report to that effect has been received and placed before this

Court, wherein it has been stated as follows :-

Page 4

“As per direction of the Returning Officer, I undertook

re-checking of voters list based on the complaint

received from Mr. Goutam Das on re-checking I found

that names appearing in Annexure I of the Complaint

do not appear in the voter list of any of the Bar

Associations in the District of Murshidabad. So far as

the names appearing in Annexure III of the Complaint,

in the final Voter list uploaded on 20.02.2026, the

name of a voter appearing twice and thrice has

been marked “Dupl icate” keeping one valid. The

names could not be stricken out in order to maintain

the serial numbers in the voter list. In respect of

Annexure II, it has been found that names of

some persons appear in the voter lists of both

Jalpaiguri Bar Association as well as Siliguri Bar

Association. Such inclusion was done when the

provisional list in part II was published on 09.01.2026

in the website and in all probability at the request of

the Advocates of concerned Bar Association. Objections

were sought for by public notice dated 09.01.2026,

published in two daily Newspapers as well as in the

website of the Bar Council of West Bengal, but Bar

Council did not receive any objection in this regard till

the last date i.e. 16.01.2026. No complaint has been

received from any of the Voter and at this stage it

will be very difficult to delete or strike out the

names of the voters from any one of the said two

Bar Associations without taking consent of them.

Considering the fact that the election is scheduled to be

held on 0 9.03.2026 & 10.03.2026 and all

arrangements including Police Posting have already

been done and most of the employees of the Bar

Council are engaged in distribution of ballot boxes and

ballot papers, it is not possible to make any

correction at this stage.”

9. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that he has

sent an e-mail to the petitioner herein stating as follows:-

“I have gone through your letter. So far as appearance

of the names in the voters list (Part I & II), objections

were invited by the election Notice dated 09.01.2026

and whatever objections were received were taken

care of. So far as the duplication in Part III, care

was taken for elimination of duplicate names, In

Page 5

any event I have instructed the concerned official to re-

check the names according to your complaint and

submit a report to me. Similar names may be there

for more than one voter.”

10. Bar Council notification dated 12

th

January, 2015 relating to

“Certificate and place of Practice (Verification) Rules, 2015” has

been issued with the following object and reasons:-

“The Council considered the Draft Rules with

regard to verification of Certificate and Place of

Practice of Advocates and to repeal the Bar Council

of India Certificate of Practice and Renewal Rules,

2014 and passed the following resolution.

The legal profession is an Honorable one and it

has critical role to play in protecting and promoting the

Civil and Constitutional rights of the people. An

independent and fearless Bar is vital and crucial for

sustaining and promoting a true and healthy

democracy. The Bar which is subject to

manipulation and influence from extraneous

powers, howsoever mighty and esteemed they

may be, cannot do justice either to the Legal

Profession or to the Rule of Law. Bench and Bar are

the two wheels of a chariot and one cannot function

without the other. Sadly, this profession has fallen

under a cloud.

The other object was/is also to introduce certain

electoral reforms in the Bar Council/Bar Association

elections, because in recent past, the Bar Council of

India and the State Bar Councils have come across the

cases of rigging in the polls and the allegations

of bogus voting has now become frequent. since the

State Bar Councils and/or majority of Bar Associations

of the country have no record of the Advocates who

died after enrolment or who joined other jobs, business

or professions; the Bar Council of India being the

regular of Legal profession and Legal education of the

country has, therefore, decided to undertake the

detailed verification and then to prepare a Voters'

List alongwith recent photographs of the

Advocate (Voter).

Shockingly, it has come to the notice of the

Council that at some places, the office-bearers of

Page 6

Bar Associations or some vote-seekers knowingly

make such people members and voters of their

Associations with a motive to get their votes in

the elections of Bar Associations or Bar

Councils.”

11. The following Rules of 2015 are relevant:-

Rule 4(g) lays down:-

“(g) Bar Association of a given area/town/city means

an area/territory and court work based association of

advocates, weather registered under the Societies

Registration Act (Act No. XXI of 1860) or not having its

area/territory defined in terms of the whole or part of

the territorial jurisdiction of Courts/Tribunals/Persons

or any other Authorities legally competent to take

evidence before which its members ordinarily

practice law and it includes Bar Association

exclusively dealing in specific fields of law viz.

Income Tax, Corporate Law, Central/State Excise

Law etc. in relation to the

authorities/tribunals/boards etc. thereunder.”

12. Rule 6 (Chapter II) lays down:-

“6.1 An advocate, after having obtained a Certificate

of Enrollment under section 22 of the Advocates Act,

1961, is required to get himself registered as a

member of the Bar Association where he

ordinarily practices law or intends to practice

law. And if any Advocate does not intend to be a

member of any Bar Association duly recognized by

concerned State Bar Council, then he shall be required

to intimate the same to the State Bar Council and he

shall have to explain as to how shall he be getting the

benefits of any welfare scheme floated by the State

Bar Council or the Local Bar Association. The decision

of State Bar Council shall be final in this regard.

6.2 In case an advocate leaves one Bar

Association and joins another by reason of

change of place of practice or by reason of

Page 7

change of field of law, he/she shall intimate such

change with all the relevant particulars to the State Bar

Council, of which he is a member.

Such fact of leaving as well as of joining

shall be independently intimated to the aforesaid said

Bar Council within a period of one month.”

13. Rule 8.4 (iv) also being relevant is as follows:-

“8.4 (iv) Certificate in Form A Column III issued

by the President/Secretary or by any other office bearer

of the Association, who is duly authorized for this

purpose by the Bar Association/ to the effect that the

applicant advocate is a bona fide member of the

concerned Bar Association and that he has not left law

practice OR By any member of State Bar Council duly

authorized by State Bar Council or by the Bar Council of

India.

In case, the applicant has been a member of

different Bar Associations at different times since

the issuance of certificate of enrolment under section 22

of the Advocates Act, 1961, such certificates may be

obtained from the Presidents/Secretaries of the different

Bar Associations, of which the applicant remained a

member, at different times.”

14. Form-A Column-II of the rules is as follows:-

“2. That I usually practice at _______________________

and I intend to cast my vote.

ii. In the elections of Bar Association

___________________ (Name and Place of Bar

Association).”

15. Form-A column III (Certification) is as follows:-

Page 8

16. Form –B is as follows:-

17. Column 20 and 21 in Form C being relevant are as follows:-

Page 9

“20. Place where Advocate intend s to cast his vote

in the elections of Bar Council ____________________.

21. Place/Name of Bar Association (if any) where

the advocate intends to cast his vote

_______________________.”

18. Form- D is as follows, Para 7 & 8 are relevant:-

19. From E is as follows:-

Page 10

20. As such, it is clear from the said rules and the F orms

annexed, that a member of the Bar Council of State normally is

member of the Bar Association, where he normally practices

and is entitled to cast only one vote in the State Bar Council

elections conducted.

21. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in M.

Varadhan vs. Union of India & Anr. in Writ Petition (s)

(civil) No (s). 1319/2023, the Supreme Court has directed as

follows :-

“19. During the course of hearing, it is

seen that several lawyers have

individual and varied grievances. We

are afraid such individual grievances

cannot be addressed in these proceedings.

Liberty is, hence, granted to them to apply

before the High -Powered Election

Committee (s) for redressal of their

individual issue (s).

20. Any person who is aggrieved by the

decision of the High-Powered Supervisory

Committee. The decision taken by the

Supervisory Committee shall be final. No

civil court or High Court shall

entertain any petition (s) against such

decision.”

22. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioner that the said direction as relied upon by the

Page 11

respondent herein, is applicable only in case of lawyers having

„individual and varied grievances‟.

23. It is the contention of Mr. Majumder appearing for the

petitioner herein, that the said directions in paragraph 19 and

20 of the judgment, has been passed in view of the observation

of the Court in paragraph 7 and 8 of the said judgment ,

wherein the issue relates to exercise taken to identify the

(individual) advocates with fake unrecognized degrees and the

Court has directed the State Bar Councils to verify the

genuineness of the law degrees of the advocates enrolled. It is

thus individual grievances which the Court has directed, for

addressing the same as per the method provided in paragraph

19 and 20 of the judgment.

24. It is further submitted that in the present case it is neither the

case of an individual grievance nor about advocates having fake

degrees.

25. On the other hand, it is stated that it is a serious issue, which

shall hamper, free, transparent and fair elections, as the final

electoral list of Jalpaiguri Bar Association has been prima facie

manipulated by including the names in duplicate and also

names of persons as voters who are not members of the

Jalpaiguri Bar Association but admittedly belong to Bar

Associations of other Districts, leading to the names of an

Page 12

advocate registered under the State Bar Council having one

registration number, having more than one vote in the

elections, being admittedly enlisted as a voter in the “final

electoral roll” of more than one Bar Association.

26. Mr. Majumder further relies upon paragraph 36 to 40 in Union

Territory of Ladakh & Ors. vs. Jammu and Kashmir

National Conference, through its General Secretary reported

in (2024) 18 SCC 643, wherein the Supreme Court was of the

view:-

“36. We are conscious that, by way of certain

pronouncements, some of which are alluded to in

this judgment, the Court extended principles relating

to elections to Parliament, State Assemblies and

Municipalities to other arenas as well. Indicatively,

the interpretation of judgments is always to be made

with due regard to the facts and circumstances of

the peculiar case concerned [Sanjay Dubey v. State

of M.P., (2023) 17 SCC 187 : 2023 INSC 519, para

18] . We have looked at Articles 243-O, 243-ZG and

329 of the Constitution, and conclude that no bar hit

the High Court, even on principle. Apart from the

judgments expressly considered and dealt with,

hereinbefore and hereinafter, we have perused, out

of our own volition, the decisions, inter alia, of

varying Bench strength of this Court in N.P.

Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal

Constituency [N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer,

Namakkal Constituency, (1952) 1 SCC 94 : 1952

SCR 218, where the Court held that: ( N.P.

Ponnuswami case, SCC p. 108, para 13)“13. … The

discussion in this passage makes it clear that the

word “election” can be and has been appropriately

used with reference to the entire process which

consists of several stages and embraces many

steps, some of which may have an important

bearing on the result of the process.”,with respect to

Article 329(b) of the Constitution.] ; Durga Shankar

Page 13

Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh [Durga Shankar

Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh, (1954) 2 SCC 20 : (1955) 1

SCR 267] ; Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad

Ishaque [Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad

Ishaque, (1954) 2 SCC 881 : (1955) 1 SCR 1104]

; Narayan Bhaskar Khare v. Election Commission of

India [Narayan Bhaskar Khare v. Election

Commission of India, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 80 :

1957 SCR 1081] ; Mohinder Singh Gill v. Election

Commission of India [Mohinder Singh Gill v. Election

Commission of India, (1978) 1 SCC 405] ; Lakshmi

Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman [Lakshmi

Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman , (1985) 4

SCC 689] ; Indrajit Barua v. Election Commission of

India [Indrajit Barua v. Election Commission of

India, (1985) 4 SCC 722] ; Election Commission of

India v. Shivaji [Election Commission of

India v. Shivaji, (1988) 1 SCC 277] ; Digvijay

Mote v. Union of India [Digvijay Mote v. Union of

India, (1993) 4 SCC 175, where, apropos Article 324

powers of the ECI, this Court held: (Digvijay Mote

case, SCC p. 178, para 9)“9. However, it has to be

stated this power is not unbridled. Judicial

review will still be permissible, over the

statutory body exercising its functions affecting

public law rights.”] ; Boddula Krishnaiah v. State

Election Commr., A.P. [Boddula Krishnaiah v. State

Election Commr., A.P., (1996) 3 SCC 416] ; Anugrah

Narain Singh v. State of U.P. [Anugrah Narain

Singh v. State of U.P., (1996) 6 SCC 303] ; Election

Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar [Election

Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar, (2000) 8 SCC

216] ; Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corpn.,

Ahmedabad [Kishansing Tomar v. Municipal Corpn.,

Ahmedabad, (2006) 8 SCC 352] ; W.B. State Election

Commission v. Communist Party of India

(Marxist) [W.B. State Election

Commission v. Communist Party of India (Marxist),

(2018) 18 SCC 141] ; Dravida Munnetra

Kazhagam v. State of T.N. [Dravida Munnetra

Kazhagam v. State of T.N., (2020) 6 SCC 548]

; Laxmibai v. Collector [Laxmibai v. Collector, (2020)

12 SCC 186] , and last but not the least, State of

Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh [State of

Goa v. Fouziya Imtiaz Shaikh, (2021) 8 SCC 401.

Where the learned 3-Judge Bench has considered a

Page 14

catena of the precedents relevant to the issue(s)

before it.] . On scrutiny, in combination with the

timelines and facts of the matter herein, we are

sure that the High Court did not falter.

37. We would indicate that the restraint, self -

imposed, by the courts as a general principle, laid

out in some detail in some of the decisions supra, in

election matters to the extent that once a

notification is issued and the election process starts,

the Constitutional Courts, under normal

circumstances are loath to interfere, is not a

contentious issue. But where issues crop up,

indicating unjust executive action or an

attempt to disturb a level playing field between

candidates and/or political parties with no

justifiable or intelligible basis, the

Constitutional Courts are required, nay they

are duty-bound, to step in. The reason that the

courts have usually maintained a ha nds-off

approach is with the sole salutary objective of

ensuring that the elections, which are a

manifestation of the will of the people, are taken to

their logical conclusion, without delay or dilution

thereof. In the context of providing appropriate

succour to the aggrieved litigant at the appropriate

time [B.S. Hari Commandant v. Union of India,

(2023) 13 SCC 779, para 50] , the learned Single

Judge acted rightly. In all fairness, we must note

that the learned ASG, during the course of

arguments, did not contest the power per se of

the High Court to issue the directions it did,

except that the same amounted to denying the

appellants their discretion. As stated

hereinbefore, we are satisfied that in view of the

1968 Order, the appellants' discretion was not

unbridled, and rather, it was guided by the 1968

Order.

38. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge [J&K

National Conference v. State (UT of Ladakh), 2023

SCC OnLine J&K 671] , further expounded by the

learned Division Bench [State (UT of Ladakh) v. J&K

National Conference, 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 670] ,

leaves no doubt that the relief sought by R -1

was required to be granted and, accordingly, the

same was granted by the High Court. The stark

Page 15

factor which stares us in the face is that well before

and well in time, by way of the writ petition, R-1 had

approached the court of first instance (the learned

Single Judge), for the reliefs, which have been found

due to them ultimately, and upheld by the appellate

court (the learned Division Bench). It is the

appellants, who by virtue of sheer non-compliance of

the High Court's orders [State (UT of Ladakh) v. J&K

National Conference, 2023 SCC OnLine J&K

670]

,

[J&K National Conference v. State (UT of

Ladakh), 2023 SCC OnLine J&K 671] , be it noted,

without any stay, can alone be labelled responsible

for the present imbroglio. These stark facts cannot

be broadly equated with other hypothetical

scenarios, wherein the facts may warrant a

completely hands-off approach.

39. This case constrains the Court to take note

of the broader aspect of the lurking danger of

authorities concerned using their powers

relating to elections arbitrarily and thereafter,

being complacent, rather overconfident, that

the courts would not interfere. The

misconceived notion being that in the ultimate

eventuate, after elections are over, when such

decisions/actions are challenged, by sheer

passage of time, irreversible consequences

would have occurred, and no substantive relief

could be fashioned is just that — misconceived.

However, conduct by authorities as exhibited herein

may seriously compel the Court to have a

comprehensive re-think, as to whether the self-

imposed restrictions may need a m ore liberal

interpretation, to ensure that justice is not only

done but also seen to be done, and done in time

to nip in the bud any attempted misadventure.

We refrain from further comment on the appellants,

noting the pendency of the contempt proceeding.

40. As made clear by us in the foregoing

paragraphs, the situation emanating herein is,

in a manner of speaking, unprecedented. With

a sense of anguish, it would not be wrong to

say that the instant judgment has been invited

upon themselves by the appellants. The orders

[State (UT of Ladakh) v. J&K National Conference,

2023 SCC OnLine J&K 670]

,

[J&K National

Page 16

Conference v. State (UT of Ladakh), 2023 SCC

OnLine J&K 671] of the High Court, in our

considered opinion, were in aid of the electoral

process, and no fault can be found therewith.”

27. Para 1 and 23 in M. Varadhan (Supra) relied upon by the

respondents being relevant are as follows:-

“1. The controversy in this batch of cases, including various

applications filed from time to time, revolves around fair,

transparent, and timely conduction of elections for

the State Bar Councils.

23. Before closing our observations, we acknowledge and

place on record our appreciation for the fair stand

taken by the Bar Council of India before this Court to

further the cause of fair and transparent elections to

the State Bar Councils.”

28. Thus the sole purpose of the judgment in M. Varadhan (Supra)

is to ensure that timely, free, fair and transparent elections to

the State Bar Councils is to conducted.

29. Relying upon Union territory of Ladakh (Supra) and M.

Varadhan (Supra), the situation herein clearly calls for the

interference of this (constitutional) Court, as issues herein have

cropped up indicating unjust executive action or an attempt to

disturb a level playing field between candidates with no

justification basis, and the Court herein is thus duty bound to

step in.

Page 17

30. Thus, considering all these factors, the respondents shall carry

out the election, but to ensure that no voter is permitted to cast

more than one vote. The irregularity is admitted and thus

palpably erroneous against Election Rules.

31. The respondent herein cannot take the shelter of the Supreme

Court when admittedly the gross irregularity is admitted.

32. The question of taking the consent of a party to delete his/her

name from lists other than one, is again a gross irregularity.

33. The respondents have to remember that an advocate may be a

member of more than one Bar Association or lawyers forum,

but can exercise only one vote in the election and by no

means can vote, as a member of the several associations, as

a voter more than once. A member registered under one Bar

Council of a State, can have only one vote. A member of several

Bar Associations/forum cannot by any means have as many

votes as his/her membership. Such an error being admitted is

unthinkable when such reliance has been placed upon them by

the Hon’ble Apex Court.

34. Thus the contention of the respondents that even though they

admit that the names of some persons appear more than once as

“voters” in more than one list, the said names cannot be deleted

without consent of such voters, is clearly in violation of the rules

of a free, transparent and fair election.

Page 18

35. The contention that the petitioner has lodged a complaint at a

belated stage is not an issue when admittedly there has been

gross irregularity in preparation of the final electoral roll/voters

lists, which is clearly in violation of the rules for conducting a

free, transparent and fair election.

36. Accordingly, the respondents shall take immediate steps to

ensure that under no circumstance a voter casts his/her

votes more than once and to ensure such compliance, shall

take all steps as necessary to undo the wrong admittedly

committed by the respondents herein, which goes against the

principle of natural justice being an abuse of power and against

the fundamental rights of a free citizen, when the purity,

transparency and a fair election process is to be ensured by the

respondents and if required through the Courts, if such process

is being hampered in any manner whatsoever.

37. Considering all the issues herein, the writ application is

disposed of, with the direction that the respondent nos. 1 to

3 shall take immediate steps for correction and revise the

final electoral role published for Jalpaiguri Bar Association

Booth for the 12

th

Election of members of the Bar Council of

West Bengal as per the observation made by this Court in

this order. The total exercise be completed by the 6

th

March,

2026 and a revised electoral be published.

Page 19

38. The respondent no. 1 & 3 shall also ensure that all final electoral

rolls are free from such irregularities, to avoid allegations of

manipulation in election in future.

39. Para 39 in Union territory of Ladakh (Supra) being applicable

to the facts and circumstances of the present case, is once again

relied upon and the observations/guidelines of the Supreme

Court therein, gives this Court the powers to step in to ensure

free, fair and transparent elections (Para 1, 23 in M. Varadhan

(Supra)).

40. WPA 334 of 2026 is disposed of.

41. All connected application, if any, stands disposed of.

42. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

43. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this Judgment, if applied for,

be supplied to the parties, expeditiously after complying with all

necessary legal formalities.

[Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.]