W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 1 of 70
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 23
rd
December, 2025
Pronounced on: 05
th
January, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 3646/2025, CM APPL. 17024/2025, CM APPL. 20920/2025,
CM APPL. 22610/2025, CM APPL. 32425/2025 & CM APPL.
40471/2025
VIPIN KUMAR SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Tanya Gupta, Mr. Harshit Jain,
Ms. Radhika Gaur and Mr. Pratik
Sharma, Advs. with Mr. Vipin Kumar
Sharma, Mr. Bipin Dubey and Mr.
Pardeep Sharma, Petitioners in person
M: 9899827106
Email: vkassociates2004@gmail.com
Mr. Mahmood Pracha, Mr. Bipin
Kumar Dubey, Mr. Sandeep Singh,
Mr. Vipin Sharma, Mr. Harshit Jain,
Mr. Surya Dev Singh, Mr. Ashish
Bhardwaj, Ms. Tanya Gupta, Mr.
A.K. Mishra, Mr. Naresh Pal, Mr.
Arun Kumar, Mr. Anuj Kumar
Mishra, Ms. Niharika, Ms. Mahima,
Ms. Rashmi Kumari, Ms. Savita
Kumari, Mr. Vinod Kumar and Ms.
Bibha, Advs.
Dr. Pradeep Sharma, Mr. M. Mihal
Mehdi and Mr. S.K. Raut, Advs. for
P-3
Mr. Ramesh, Ms. Ruchi Rajora
Sharma and Mr. Pratik Sharma, Advs.
Dr. N. Pradeep Sharma, Mr. Naresh
Kumar, Mr. RAkesh Kumar Bhalla,
Mr. Pawan Kumar, Ms. Tabassum,
Ms. Tisha and Ms. Kiran Sharma,
Advs.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 2 of 70
Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Mr. Anurag
Rawat and Mr. Manish Kumar, Advs.
for P-1
versus
THE RETURNING OFFICER NDBA ELECTIONS,
2025 .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Bhavnesh Saini, Mr. Neeraj Saini
and Mr. Karan Chawla, Advs. for R-9
Ms. Raji Nathani, Adv. for R-17
(Through VC)
Ms. Padma Priya and Ms. Poornima
Gupta, Advs. for R-4
Mr. Sumit K. Batra and Ms. Priyanka
Jindal, Advs. for R-GNCTD
Mob: 7290911000
Mr. Rajiv Talwar, Mr. S. Shantanu
and Mr. Pratap Shankar, Advocates
for R-11
Mob: 9818058809
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
JUDGEMENT
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
Introduction:
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to declare the New
Delhi Bar Association (“NDBA”) Election Result of 2025, of the Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi, declared on 22
nd
March, 2025, as null and void
and to cancel the NDBA Election, as held on 21
st
March, 2025. There is
further prayer for directions to the respondents to conduct fresh elections.
2. By way of the present petition, the petitioners also seek directions to
the respondents for preservation of the CCTV footage of the camera installed
inside the NDBA polling station and also the entire election record.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 3 of 70
3. The petitioners before this Court were amongst the various contesting
candidates for the different posts in the NDBA Election held on 21
st
March,
2025. The said petitioners allege that the NDBA Election was not conducted
in a free and fair manner, and being aggrieved by the same, they have
approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
(“Constitution”), seeking to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Factual Matrix
4. The facts, as set forth in the writ petition, are as follows:
4.1 On 19
th
March, 2024, a full bench of this Court in W.P.(C)10363/2021
(“Lalit Sharma writ”), titled as Lalit Sharma and Others Versus Union of
India and Others
1
, held that firstly, elections to all Bar Associations would
take place on a single day and secondly, casting of votes during elections to
various Bar Associations in Delhi shall be permitted only to the holders of an
identity card/proximity card. Various directions were issued in this regard to
ensure that the elections are conducted fairly and transparently.
4.2 In pursuance of the directions passed in the aforesaid judgment,
Minutes of Meeting dated 10
th
February, 2025, was issued by the Committee
for NDBA Election, 2024-2025 on 12
th
February, 2025, whereby, it was
resolved that the list of advocates/members for NDBA Elections, 2025
consisted of 2253 advocates/members, i.e., eligible members to whom
proximity cards had been issued.
4.3 Subsequently, on 13
th
February, 2025, the Final List of Voters was
issued by the Chairperson of the Committee for NDBA Election, 2024-2025,
1
2024 SCC OnLine Del 1901.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 4 of 70
i.e., District Judge-05, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, wherein, the total
number of members eligible for voting was 2253.
4.4 Thereafter, another direction was passed in W.P.(C)10363/2021 on 21
st
February, 2025, whereby, the Court clarified that there should be a final and
determinative list, which would regulate the right of participation, and on the
basis of which, proximity cards may be issued. It was further provided that
elections to all Bar Associations were to be conducted on 21
st
March, 2025.
4.5 In view of the scheduled NDBA Election on 21
st
March, 2025, the
respondent no. 1, i.e., the Returning Officer (“RO”), NDBA Election, issued
„NDBA Election 2025 Guidelines for Voters‟ (“Guidelines”) on 20
th
March,
2025. The said Guidelines stated that no voters shall be permitted to enter the
polling area without their proximity card, and the same was mandatory for
identification and to cast vote.
4.6 The NDBA Election, 2025 was conducted on 21
st
March, 2025.
During the course of the election process on 21
st
March, 2025, at about 3:30
PM, some supporters of certain candidates tried to enter the polling station
illegally, without having valid and genuine proximity cards. With an
intention to disrupt the election process, they disconnected the proximity
scanning machines and entered inside the polling station to cast bogus and
duplicate votes. This went on for an hour and half, during which period, the
scanners were made non-functional and on account of the same, votes were
cast by unverified persons.
4.7 Petitioners sought to raise a complaint regarding the aforesaid
disruption with the respondents, however, no action was taken by them and
the polling continued to take place without verification of proximity cards.
The polling went on till 7:00 PM and the Electronic Voting Machines
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 5 of 70
(“EVMs”) were sealed at 7:28 PM. At the time of sealing of EVMs, the
respondents had announced that the total number of votes cast were 2034.
Out of the 2034 votes, 2017 were effective votes and 17 votes were recorded
as „None of the Above‟ (“NOTA”) in two polling booths.
4.8 Aggrieved by the aforesaid disruption in election process, the
petitioners also gave written complaints to the respondent no. 1/ RO and
respondent no.2/ Observer of NDBA Election on the day of the election
itself, i.e., 21
st
March, 2025, informing about the serious violation in the
election procedure. The petitioners also highlighted the significant breaches
of established norms therein. Furthermore, the petitioners addressed an
additional letter dated 22
nd
March, 2025, to the RO requesting to provide
official data and details, including, the total number of proximity cards
scanned and the total number of votes cast, with respect to the NDBA
Election conducted on 21
st
March, 2025.
4.9 Thereafter, again on 23
rd
March, 2025, at 4:36 PM, the petitioners
addressed an E-mail to the RO, requesting to withhold the declaration of the
final NDBA Election Result on account of legal remedies being sought by
the petitioners before the High Court of Delhi against the malpractices
involved in the election process and inaction of the RO.
4.10 However, on 23
rd
March, 2025, at around 6:00 PM, the RO declared
the NDBA Election Result, 2025 in a rushed and hasty manner, i.e., after
receiving the aforesaid E-mail of the petitioners. Even though the official
NDBA Election Result, 2025 notice bears the date 22
nd
March, 2025, the
same was declared on 23
rd
March, 2025, i.e., on a Sunday.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 6 of 70
4.11 Thus, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition alleging
violation of their fundamental right to free and fair elections, which forms a
part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
Proceedings before this Court
5. On 24
th
March, 2025, when the present writ petition was listed before
this Court for the first time, upon urgent mentioning before the Chief Justice,
without going into the merits of the case, this Court had directed status quo
to be maintained till the next hearing, i.e., 25
th
March, 2025.
6. Subsequently, notice was issued in the petition on 25
th
March, 2025
and the respondent no. 1/ RO was directed to file the video recording of the
election process, with respect to the verification of voters and voting in the
polling booths, in a CD/Pen Drive. The RO was further directed to produce
details of the scanning report with regard to the proximity cards. Further,
upon submission of the RO that the Election Result had been declared and
the elected candidates had taken charge of the office, this Court directed that
the Election Result of NDBA Election, 2025 would be subject to the
outcome of the instant writ petition. The order dated 25
th
March, 2025, reads
as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 & CM APPL. 17024/2025 (for stay)
3. The present petition has been filed challenging the election of the
New Delhi Bar Association (“NDBA”) Election, 2025, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that
the said elections, were not conducted in a free and fair manner and
therefore, by way of the present petition, it is prayed that the final
election result dated 22
nd
March, 2025 of the NDBA elections, 2025,
may be quashed.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 7 of 70
5. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the
petitioners are the candidates who have contested the NDBA Elections,
2025 for different posts in the New Delhi Bar Association. They are
aggrieved by the process of elections conducted by the respondents, as
the same was not conducted in a free and fair manner and a large
scale of rigging has taken place, which is within the knowledge of the
respondents.
6. It is submitted that respondents have totally failed to take effective
and necessary action to prevent the malpractices in conducting the
elections.
7. It is submitted that during the course of the election process, at
3:30 PM, some supporters of certain candidates tried to enter the
premises illegally in the polling station without having valid and
genuine proximity cards. Upon objection, they started creating
nuisance and shouted at the other members.
8. It is submitted that for about one and a half hours, ruckus was
created inside the polling station and the entire polling station was
captured. During this period, the proximity scanning process was
altogether not made workable, however, the votes were being cast by
unverified members.
9. Thus, it is submitted that there is a discrepancy in the number of
votes that have been casted and the number of proximity cards that
have been scanned. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that
total number of proximity cards scanned is 1850, whereas, the total
voters who casted their votes in the NDBA elections, 2025, are 2034.
Thus, it is apparent that there is large number of bogus voting that
took place.
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners further
submits that instead of 6:00 PM, the elections voting process
continued till 7:30 PM.
11. Issue notice.
12. Notice is accepted by learned counsels appearing for respondent
nos. 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16.
13. Let notice be issued to the other respondents, by all modes, upon
filing of process fees.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 i.e., the
Returning Officer, submits that there is a proper procedure which is
in place, before the voters could have casted their vote in the polling
booth. He submits that the stage I verification was at the entry point,
wherein, the verification of the proximity card was done. At that
point of time, the scanning of the proximity card was done, after
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 8 of 70
which the voters collected their proximity card and a slip was pasted
on their proximity card.
15. It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 1 i.e., the Returning Officer, that in stage II, there
was a physical re-verification, and the declaration forms of the
respective voters, were verified by the officials sitting therein.
16. Upon physical verification, a slip was again pasted on the
declaration form, which was red in colour. It was only thereafter,
that a voter was allowed to enter the election booth, wherein, the
declaration form was deposited back with the slip and voting was
done by the respective voters.
17. Thus, learned counsel appearing for the Returning Officer
submits that in case there was a glitch in the software for the
purposes of scanning the proximity card, the physical verification
ensured that only genuine voters casted their vote. He further
submits that the physical declaration forms of the respective voters,
as verified at the time of election, are in custody of the Returning
Officer, and the same have been kept in a sealed cover.
18. On a pointed query by this Court, it is submitted that the whole
procedure, right from the verification, till the casting of the vote, has
been duly video-graphed. He further submits that the results of the
election were declared on 22
nd
March, 2025, and that the respective
winning candidates, have already assumed their office.
19. However, the aforesaid fact is disputed by learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners, who submits that no handing over or
taking over of the charge, has taken place.
20. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for respondent nos. 11 and
13 submit that the present writ petition cannot be entertained, as the
various issues raised by the petitioners are subject matter of trial, for
which evidence would have to be led.
21. Learned Senior Counsels for respondent nos. 11 and 13 further
submit that the election petition would have to be filed by the
petitioners, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case
of N.P. Ponnuswami Versus Returning Officer, Namakkal
Constituency and Others, (1952) 1 SCC 94. They further rely upon
Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Javed Rahat &
Ors. Versus Bar Council of India and Ors., 2006 SCC OnLine 122, to
challenge the maintainability of the present writ petition.
22. Learned Senior Counsels for the respondents further submit that
scanning of proximity cards, is not a yardstick to assess the number
of people who have casted their vote.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 9 of 70
23. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the Constitution of
the New Delhi Bar Association, which has been handed over to this
Court, to submit that no office bearer is eligible to seek election and
hold the same office consecutively for more than two terms of two
years each. Further, attention of this Court has also been drawn to the
election procedure, as given in the Constitution of the New Delhi Bar
Association, Patiala House Courts.
24. Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the respondents also
dispute the various averments made by the petitioners by way of the
present petition.
25. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4, i.e., Registrar
General of this Court, submits that the role of the Delhi High Court
in the present case, was only to the extent of issuing the proximity
cards. She submits that after the issuance of the proximity cards, this
Court does not have any role in the matter.
26. Responding to the various submissions made by learned counsel
appearing for the respondents, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioners draws the attention of this Court to the Full Bench
judgment dated 19
th
March, 2024 of this Court, passed in W.P.(C)
10363/2021, titled as Lalit Sharma and Ors. Versus Union of India
and Ors., and in particular relies upon paras 11.6, 11.7 and 11.8
encapsulated in para 35 of the said judgment, to submit that without
proximity card, no voter could have cast his or her vote. Thus, he
submits that in the absence of scanning of the proximity cards, the said
voters, could not have voted in the said election.
27. He further submits that a complaint dated 21
st
March, 2025 was
duly submitted to the Returning Officer, which has not been taken into
account.
28. Further, he submits that the election result was ante-dated by the
Returning Officer, as the election result was declared on 23
rd
March,
2025, whereas, it has been ante-dated as 22
nd
March, 2025.
29. However, learned counsels appearing for the respondents refute
the aforesaid and submit that the result was duly declared on 22
nd
March, 2025, itself.
30. Let reply be filed by the respondents within a period of two weeks.
Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of one week,
thereafter.
31. Along with the reply, the respondent no. 1, i.e., the Returning
Officer shall duly file in a sealed cover, all the declaration forms of the
voters, who have voted in the election held on 21
st
March, 2025.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 10 of 70
32. Further, the respondent no. 1 shall also file in a CD/Pen Drive, the
video recording of the process, with respect to the verification of the
voters and the voting in the polling booth.
33. The respondent no. 1 is also directed to produce before this Court,
the details of the scanning report, with regard to the proximity cards.
34. Since learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, i.e., the
Returning Officer, has made a categorical statement before this
Court that the results of the NDBA Elections, 2025, have already
been declared on 22
nd
March, 2025, and that the candidates who
have been elected, have assumed their charge, it is directed that the
election result of the NDBA Elections, 2025, shall be subject to the
outcome of the present writ petition.
35. List on 09
th
May, 2025.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. An impleadment application came to be filed by UCO Bank, which
was disposed of on 02
nd
April, 2025, by noting that operation of bank
accounts and FDRs of NDBA shall be carried out by the newly elected
Executive, during the pendency of the present writ petition. The newly
elected Executive was directed to maintain full record as regards the
operation of the said accounts and further, monthly accounts as maintained
by the NDBA Executive, had to be produced before the Court at the time of
hearing. Additionally, the Court directed the outgoing Secretary and
Treasurer to meet, and formally hand over all records, registers, etc., of the
NDBA to the newly elected Executive.
8. Various applications were filed by the petitioners in the interim. In one
such application being CM APPL. 20920/2025, seeking directions to the RO
to produce details of scanning report of proximity cards, this Court, vide
order dated 08
th
April, 2025, directed the RO to preserve and secure the
physical record of proximity cards of all those voters, whose cards could not
be scanned, but they were permitted to cast their votes in the elections held
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 11 of 70
on 21
st
March, 2025. It is pertinent to note that on 08
th
April, 2025, when the
aforesaid order was passed, the respondents were unrepresented.
9. By way of order dated 26
th
May, 2025, this Court had directed the
Registry to keep in its protected custody, the electronic record of elections
conducted and record of declaration forms, as submitted by the respondent
no.1/ RO.
10. On 11
th
July, 2025, the earlier respondent no. 2, i.e., a sitting Judge of
the Patiala House Courts, who was the Chairperson of the Committee for
NDBA Election, 2025, was deleted from the array of parties. Pursuant
thereto, an amended Memo of Parties was filed by the petitioners on 20
th
August, 2025. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the position of the
parties, as referred to in the amended Memo of Parties dated 20
th
August,
2025, shall be referenced hereinafter in the present judgment.
11. During the course of final arguments, it was brought to this Court‟s
attention that petitioner no. 8 had made certain inappropriate statements
regarding the present matter on social media platforms. As recorded in the
order dated 15
th
December, 2025, this Court cautioned the said petitioner and
accepted the unconditional apology tendered by him for making the
unwarranted and false statements, who also undertook to remove all the
social media posts.
12. Thereafter, upon hearing all the parties at length, the judgment in the
present case was reserved on 23
rd
December, 2025. It is further recorded in
the order dated 23
rd
December, 2025, that the written submissions, as filed by
the respondent nos. 4, 7 and 10, have been adopted by all the other
respondents as well.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 12 of 70
13. This Court also notes that during the course of the present
proceedings, the question of maintainability of the present writ petition came
to be raised by various respondents by way of CM APPL. 22610/2025 and
CM APPL. 32425/2025. All parties have thereupon made extensive
submissions on the preliminary aspect of maintainability of the writ petition,
as filed.
14. At this stage, it is relevant to note that during the course of hearing on
31
st
October, 2025, and again on 19
th
November, 2025, the petitioners have
orally submitted before this Court that they are not pressing the reliefs
prayed for in respect of various disputed questions of facts raised before this
Court and that they confine themselves for the purposes of the present writ
petition, on the aspect of non-compliance of mandatory directions issued by
the full bench of this Court in the case of Lalit Sharma (supra).
15. Thus, this Court shall comprehensively decide the present matter on
the aspect of maintainability and merit, as has been argued by the parties
before this Court.
Submissions of Petitioners
16. In support of their case, the petitioners initially raised the following
submissions before this Court:
16.1 The writ is maintainable as there are no disputed questions of facts
involved, which require adjudication by this Court. The respondent no. 1/
RO has not refused that the number of proximity cards scanned was less than
the number of votes that were cast, i.e., as per the respondent no. 1/RO, 1850
cards were scanned as compared to 2015 votes cast. Further, the RO has not
denied the contentions as raised in the writ petition that the scanners were
made dysfunctional and were non-functional for a large part during the post-
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 13 of 70
lunch polling session. Thus, the RO has failed to deny that all proximity
cards were not scanned during polling and that voters had cast their votes
without digital verification of their cards and without getting their biometrics
scanned. Accordingly, in light of the RO‟s own admission and non-denial of
the aforesaid contention put forth in the writ petition, there are no disputed
questions of fact which are required to be adjudicated.
16.2 Bar Associations are amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution as they perform public functions under the Advocates Act,
1961.
16.3 It is settled that the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to
exercise of writ jurisdiction, when the actions complained of are, inter alia,
violative of fundamental rights. It is the fundamental right of the petitioners
that free and fair elections ought to be conducted and the same is part of the
basic structure of the Constitution. A free and fair electoral process is
imperative to maintain the legitimacy and trust in representative democracy.
16.4 Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of P.K. Dash,
Advocate & Ors. Versus Bar Council of Delhi & Ors.
2
, to contend that Bar
Associations perform a public function and therefore, are amenable to the
writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226.
16.5 On merits, the petitioners submitted that it had been resolved in the
Minutes of Meeting dated 10
th
February, 2025, issued on 12
th
February, 2025,
that there were only 2253 eligible voters, i.e., proximity cards were to be
issued only to such voters. The Final List of Voters that was issued by the
Chairperson of the NDBA Committee, 2024-25 also consisted of a total of
2
2016 SCC OnLine Del 3493.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 14 of 70
2253 eligible voters. Further, the Guidelines issued by the RO on 20
th
March,
2025, also clearly stipulated that only members having valid proximity cards
would be permitted inside the polling area, and no other proof of
identification, would be accepted.
16.6 On 21
st
March, 2025, around 3:30 PM, some supporters of certain
candidates illegally barged into the polling stations, without having valid
proximity cards and turned off/ disconnected the proximity scanning
machines in order to cast bogus/duplicate votes. Despite complaints being
made by petitioners, the respondents did not take any action.
16.7 Furthermore, on the date of polling, till 7:28 PM, i.e., at the time of
sealing of EVMs, a total of 2034 votes were cast, despite only 1850
proximity cards having been scanned. Whereas, the total number of votes
cast should have been equal to the number of proximity cards scanned. Thus,
the discrepancy in voting is apparent on the record, and a large number of
bogus voting took place.
16.8 As per the petitioners‟ knowledge, one member, namely Ms. Ruman
Puri having Enrolment No. D/3485/2019, NDBA Membership No. 7513,
Voter No. 1642, has been shown to cast her vote. However, she was abroad
on the date of the election. Thus, this is indicative of the fact that
respondents did not properly verify the votes being cast.
17. However, subsequently, the petitioners confined their submissions to
the following points:
17.1 In the case of Lalit Sharma (supra), a committee of Judges and
members of the Bar was constituted to explore the possibility of holding
uniform elections for all Bar Associations on a single day and for preparation
of proximity cards. The Court also noted the suggestions of the Committee
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 15 of 70
and modified the same in Para 35 of the judgment, and it was directed that
votes shall be cast in the elections to Bar Associations only by way of
proximity cards.
17.2 Pertinently, the judgment directed that the proximity cards for the
members of the Bar Associations shall be prepared by the Registry of this
Court under the aegis of an Audit as well as Security and Disaster
Management Committee (“Security Committee”). In regard thereto, the
Security Committee was constituted by the judges of this Court, which, by
way of a Resolution dated 09
th
January, 2025, directed that Election
Commissioners/ROs shall make all necessary arrangements for the
procurement of EVMs/ballot papers. Further, they shall coordinate with M/s.
SEC Communications Pvt. Ltd. for setting up card reader machines and
equipment. Subsequently, the said Resolution of the Security Committee was
approved in the order dated 17
th
January, 2025, passed in the Lalit Sharma
writ, and the ROs were directed to proceed accordingly.
17.3 However, the RO, in her submissions before this Court, has
disassociated herself with the scanning process of proximity cards, citing
ignorance of the functioning of scanning systems. Thus, the same is in direct
contravention of the Resolution dated 09
th
January, 2025, of the Security
Committee, and this Court‟s order dated 17
th
January, 2025, passed in Lalit
Sharma writ.
17.4 Furthermore, the respondent no. 1, in her capacity as the RO, was
discharging a public function to ensure compliance with the judgment and
subsequent orders in Lalit Sharma writ. It was not open for the RO to allow
voting by way of physical verification when the scanners were non-
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 16 of 70
functional. Such conduct is manifestly illegal and violative of this Court‟s
directions.
17.5 No action was taken by the respondents despite written complaints by
the petitioners. Details and information regarding the number of votes cast,
etc., were also sought from the RO and Observer of the NDBA Election,
2025. However, the same was also not provided.
17.6 The results were declared by the RO in a hasty and rushed manner on
23
rd
March, 2025, around 6:00 PM, soon after the E-mail sent by the
petitioners regarding their apprehension of bogus voting. Even though the
results reflect the date of 22
nd
March, 2025, the actual declaration date was
23
rd
March, 2025, i.e., a Sunday.
17.7 All proximity cards were not scanned and the voters, without digital
verification of proximity cards and without their biometrics having been
scanned and verified, were allowed to enter the polling area and cast their
votes.
17.8 To ensure free and fair election, this Court in the case of Lalit Sharma
(supra), entailed use of proximity cards during the entire election process. It
was not open to the RO to allow voting to continue despite scanners being
made dysfunctional.
17.9 The Bar Associations perform public functions under the Advocates
Act, 1961, and are therefore, amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India. The election process of the Bar Association
involves matter of public interest, as it governs the representation of
advocates, who are officers of the Court and integral to the administration of
justice.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 17 of 70
17.10 Thus, there are no disputed questions of facts that require adjudication
in the present writ petition. It is a case of deliberate non-compliance with the
directions issued by this Court in the case of Lalit Sharma (supra), and
therefore, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition and
give findings thereto.
Submissions of Respondents:
Submissions of Respondent No. 1 / RO
18. The contentions put forth by the RO in her counter affidavit, Written
Submissions dated 28
th
November, 2025 and Additional Submissions dated
15
th
December, 2025, are condensed as under:
18.1 The allegations made in the petition do not meet the requirement for
judicial interference in election matters, as laid down by the Supreme Court
in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami Versus Returning Officer, Namakkal
Constituency and Others
3
.
18.2 Challenge to elections cannot be adjudicated by writ courts as it
requires fact finding, and is a matter of trial. Moreover, in the instant
petition, reliefs sought are against the respondent no. 1, i.e., RO, and not
NDBA. The RO is neither a State instrumentality nor discharging public
duty.
18.3 The elections were conducted in a free and fair manner, without any
rigging or malpractice, and the Election Result was declared on 22
nd
March,
2025, and contrary allegations by the petitioners are misconceived.
18.4 To ensure free and fair elections, the RO adopted a multi-layer
verification process, whereby, physical verification of the proximity cards
3
(1952) 1 SCC 94.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 18 of 70
was done, in addition to scanning of the cards by M/s. SEC Communications
Pvt. Ltd.
18.5 The total number of proximity cards issued is 2284 as against the total
2034 votes cast. Declaration forms of all 2034 voters who cast their votes
were duly endorsed and preserved in a sealed cover, and have been filed
with the Court. Pertinently, the contention of the petitioners that 1850
proximity cards were scanned, is hearsay. The petitioners claim that this
information was received by them from the Joint Registrar of the Delhi High
Court, however, the counter affidavit of respondent no. 3, i.e., Registrar
General of this Court, does not support this submission.
18.6 There were eight (8) scanning machines, which were connected to one
computer. The computer was installed, managed, controlled and operated by
the employees of M/s. SEC Communications Pvt. Ltd. The RO merely
provided space for installation of the machines. Further, the RO and her
team were present in the polling area and assisted in identification of the
members. RO was present in the hall where votes were cast, as well as the
connecting hall where declaration forms were verified, along with the
proximity cards. The RO also took regular briefings from her team and gave
instructions on the microphone to ensure that voters maintained the queue.
18.7 In a meeting dated 17
th
March, 2025, a demo regarding the
functioning of the scanning machine was given. However, no training was
given to the NDBA representatives, nor did they have any expertise to
operate the scanning machines.
18.8 To the knowledge of the RO and her team, there was no
malfunctioning in the scanning machines. The scanning machines were
under the domain of the agency, i.e., M/s. SEC Communications Pvt. Ltd.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 19 of 70
Thus, in order to ensure free and fair elections, the RO conducted physical
verification of the proximity cards. Therefore, the election was held in
compliance of the directions issued in Lalit Sharma (supra), as proximity
cards were mandatory for voting, however, scanning was not compulsory.
18.9 As far as the claim of bogus voting is concerned, it is submitted that
only voters having a valid proximity card with their names appearing in the
voter list, were allowed to vote in the elections. Even if it is assumed that
there was a technical glitch in scanners, no non-proximity card holders could
have cast their votes, given the physical verification process. Complete
records of the election conducted and counting of votes as per the EVMs,
duly compared with the number of declaration forms used, have been
maintained. As per the said records, the total number of votes cast was two
thousand thirty four (2034), and accordingly, the same aligns with the
declaration forms and also corroborates with EVM records. Furthermore,
there was no provision for NOTA in the EVMs, as wrongly stated by the
petitioners in their petition.
18.10 The time for polling was from 9 AM to 5 PM and the same was not
extended. Only voters present at the polling stage before the closing time
were allowed to cast their vote. No permission was required from the
Registrar of this Court, and no objection was raised by anyone regarding this
at any stage.
Submissions of Respondent No. 3/ Registrar General of High Court of
Delhi:
19. The submissions on behalf of respondent no. 3 in the counter affidavit
and Written Submissions dated 28
th
August, 2024, are as follows:
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 20 of 70
19.1 As per Para 35(11.6) of the judgment in the case of Lalit Sharma
(supra), casting of votes was permitted only to holders of identity/proximity
cards.
19.2 The role of the Registry of this Court was limited to preparation of
identity/proximity cards. Proximity cards for eligible advocates were
prepared after four (04) levels of scrutiny, under the aegis of Security
Committee of this Court by M/s. SEC Communications Pvt. Ltd, appointed
by the Public Works Department (“PWD”), Government of NCT of Delhi.
The proximity cards were given to the respective Election Committees for
distribution to concerned advocates. Furthermore, the total number of
proximity cards issued, were two thousand two hundred eighty three (2283).
19.3 As per the Minutes of Meeting dated 09
th
January, 2025, the
arrangements for elections, procurement of EVMs/ballot papers and space
for setting up the card reading machines and other arrangements were to be
made by the Election Commissioners or Returning Officers, as per their past
practice.
19.4 Site surveys of the premises of NDBA were conducted by technical
officials of M/s. SEC Communications Pvt. Ltd. The technical and
infrastructure related requirements raised by the said agency were fulfilled
by the Election Commissioners/ Returning Officers, in consultation with
PWD.
19.5 On 17
th
March, 2025, in the meeting held by the Registrar with the
Election Commissioners and Returning Officers, a presentation regarding the
proximity card machines was given. The meeting was attended by the
Assistant Returning Officer of the NDBA, and minutes of the meeting were
communicated to the RO.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 21 of 70
19.6 Dedicated support teams and help desks were deployed in each
District Court complex to assist the Election Commissioners and Returning
Officers in the smooth functioning of the proximity card scanning process
via DES Reader machines.
19.7 Therefore, the role of the Registry was limited to the preparation of
the proximity cards and the election process was entirely under the purview
of the respondent no. 1/ RO.
Submissions of Respondent Nos. 7 & 10 / Nagendra Kumar, President
and Tarun Rana, Hony. Secretary:
20. The submissions on behalf of respondent nos. 7 and 10 in their counter
affidavit and Written Submissions dated 25
th
August, 2025 and 22
nd
December, 2025, are as follows:
20.1 The writ is not maintainable, as it raises disputed questions of facts,
the veracity of which can only be tested upon leading of evidence.
20.2 The petitioners have stated that they were informed by the Joint
Registrar of this Court that one thousand eight hundred fifty (1850)
proximity cards were scanned. However, it is unfathomable that the Joint
Registrar would informally communicate with the petitioners with respect to
the same. More so, the Registrar, i.e., respondent no. 3 in its counter affidavit
well as reply under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”), has
clearly stated that no such information/data is present with the Delhi High
Court. Furthermore, the petitioners had also filed CM APPL. 40471/2025 in
the present petition, seeking directions to the Registrar to produce complete
details of the cards scanned, and have also stated that if the number of cards
scanned is different from one thousand eight hundred fifty (1850), then the
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 22 of 70
actual number be provided by the Registrar. This makes it apparent that the
petitioners are unaware of the number of proximity cards scanned. On 17
th
December, 2025, when the matter was listed for hearing before this Court,
the counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Pradeep Sharma, had argued that the
petitioners were struggling to get the numbers and details of the scanned
proximity cards.
20.3 Thus, the said contradictory stands and conduct of the petitioners
regarding the one thousand eight hundred fifty (1850) scanned proximity
cards, and two thousand thirty four (2034) total votes cast, obliterates the
very basis of filing the present writ petition. Had the petitioners been in
knowledge of the number of cards scanned, they would not have approached
the Registrar and this Court for the same.
20.4 The petitioners have raised the issue of bogus voting with respect to a
total of one hundred eighty four (184) votes, whereas, arguendo, the
difference in votes cast to the post of President and Secretary in the NDBA
Election is two hundred eighty three (283) and four hundred thirty four
(434), respectively.
20.5 Further, disputes with respect to conduct of elections have to be raised
and adjudicated in an Election Petition. There is a constitutional bar under
Articles 329(b) and 243(zg) of the Constitution. The result of a duly
culminated election process should only be challenged by way of an Election
Petition as provided for under the rules, and in the absence thereof, by way
of a civil suit.
20.6 It is also settled law that election results of Bar Associations cannot be
challenged by way of writ petitions, and the appropriate remedy in such
cases is filing of a civil suit. Election disputes of Bar Associations, which are
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 23 of 70
governed by their own bye-laws, are essentially of a private nature and
involve disputed questions of fact. The reliance placed by the petitioners on
the case of P.K. Dash, Advocate & Ors. Versus Bar Council of Delhi &
Ors.
4
to assert a purely private right in the present writ petition, i.e., seeking
election as office bearers, is misconceived.
20.7 Furthermore, though the relief sought by the petitioners is the setting
aside of the NDBA Election Result, however, NDBA has not been arrayed as
a respondent. The relief sought is against private advocates/respondents, who
are not covered under Article 12 of the Constitution. Though the Registrar of
the Delhi High Court has been made respondent no. 3, no relief is claimed
against him and he is only a proforma respondent.
20.8 On merits, it is submitted that no complaints regarding the
malfunctioning of the scanning machine were received by the Registrar of
the Delhi High Court, as per the RTI Reply. Even the RO has stated that she
did not receive any complaint from any candidate on 21
st
March, 2025,
regarding malfunctioning of the scanning machine. Moreover, the complaint
dated 21
st
March, 2025, alleged to have been submitted to the RO, and
attached as Annexure P-8(Colly) to the petition, bears the receiving of Mr.
Jagdeep Vats, who is the erstwhile President of NDBA. He is also arrayed as
respondent no. 2 to the present petition as „Observer, NDBA Elections‟,
however, no such post of Observer exists. Furthermore, the complaint dated
21
st
March, 2025, has been prepared antedated by showing the receiving of
Mr. Jagdeep Vats, in order to create a cause of action to file the present writ
petition. The representation dated 21
st
March, 2025, addressed to the
4
2016 SCC OnLine Del 3493.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 24 of 70
„President, NDBA/Observer‟, also bears the receiving of Mr. Jagdeep Vats.
The said representation dated 21
st
March, 2025 refers to the total number of
votes cast, which also demonstrates that the representations were drafted
only after voting was completed, and no representation/complaint was
submitted at the time of voting.
20.9 The judgment dated 19
th
March, 2024, in Lalit Sharma (supra), does
not mandate the „scanning‟ of proximity cards, and only requires possession
of valid proximity cards as a pre-requisite for voting in the election of Bar
Associations. Further, the Court modified the said directions by way of an
order dated 28
th
May, 2024, passed in Lalit Sharma writ, whereby, the
capturing of biometrics of advocates/registered clerks was dispensed with.
20.10 Additionally, the RO has stated in her counter affidavit that the
scanning of proximity cards was not in her domain and that the RO only had
to ensure that every member casting the vote held a proximity card. In terms
of the Minutes of Meeting of the Security Committee of High Court, the
President/Secretaries/Election Commissioners/Returning Officers were only
supposed to provide the space for setting of proximity card reading
machines, and at no point of time did they have any supervision or control
over the agency which had set up those machines.
20.11 The case of the petitioners is that only two thousand thirty four (2034)
votes have been cast, and therefore, it is not the case of the petitioners that
the number of votes cast exceeds the number of proximity cards issued. As
per respondent no. 1, two thousand thirty four (2034) votes were cast, which
number is less than the number of proximity cards issued. Pertinently, it is
the voters‟ list, as opposed to the proximity cards issued, that was to be
treated as determinative with regard to the eligibility of a voter. The mere
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 25 of 70
allegation that there is allegedly a difference between the total number of
cards scanned and the total number of votes polled does not indicate any
bogus voting. As long as a person‟s name is on the voter‟s list and they are in
possession of a valid proximity card, they are eligible to cast their vote,
regardless of whether the card can be scanned or not.
Submissions of Respondent No. 8 / Vimal Ray Verma, Senior Vice
President:
21. The submissions on behalf of respondent no. 8 in his counter affidavit,
in addition to adopting the written submissions of respondent nos. 7 and 10,
are as follows:
21.1 The writ petition is not maintainable as NDBA is a private body of
individual lawyers, and respondent no. 1, who was appointed as a Returning
Officer, is a private person/advocate and member of NDBA. Respondent nos.
8 to 18, who are the duly elected office bearers, are private
persons/advocates. Moreover, the NDBA, its election process, or results are
not connected to the functions of the State, government or any authority
under the law.
21.2 The right remedy to challenge the NDBA Election lies before the civil
court as questions with respect to „right to office‟ fall within the jurisdiction
of the civil court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(“CPC”).
21.3 Furthermore, the Registrar and the District Judge of the Patiala House
Courts were made parties to the present petition, only to bring the petition
within the ambit of Article 226, even though, both these respondents had no
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 26 of 70
control or authority over conduct of the elections or declaration of result, and
the elections were conducted and the results were declared by the RO.
21.4 The allegation of the petitioners regarding alleged casting of more
votes, extension of time and results declared by RO requires examination of
evidence, and therefore, the writ is not maintainable.
21.5 Further, it is denied that during the election process at about 3:30 PM
on 21
st
March, 2025, some supporters of certain candidates tried to enter
illegally in the polling station without having valid and genuine proximity
cards. Further, no alarm or complaint was raised by the petitioners to the RO.
21.6 The judgment dated 19
th
March, 2024 in the case of Lalit Sharma
(supra), clarified that elections to all Bar Associations shall be held in
accordance with the Rules, Regulations and Bye-Laws of the Bar
Association. As per the Memorandum of the NDBA, elections shall be
conducted by the RO. Thus, the respondent no. 1 conducted the NDBA
Election by physical verification of the proximity cards, in a free and fair
manner. The scanning of the proximity cards was under the control of the
private agency, having no authority to conduct any election of NDBA.
Therefore, the respondent no. 1 has no authority over scanning of proximity
cards at the entry level.
Submissions of Respondent No. 9 / Navneet Panwar, Vice President:
22. The submissions on behalf of respondent no. 9 in his counter affidavit,
in addition to adopting the written submissions of respondent nos. 7 and 10,
are as follows:
22.1 The writ is not maintainable as it is an election dispute, raises disputed
questions of facts, requires leading of evidence and raises a purely private
cause/interest.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 27 of 70
22.2 It is not that disputes pertaining to a Bar Association can under no
circumstance have a public character and be amenable to writ jurisdiction.
However, a pure election dispute challenging the election results on the basis
of disputed question of facts, as opposed to a lis pertaining to the legal
regime governing elections such as qualification, disqualification for
candidates and voters, does not have any public character, and is a purely
private dispute. The same ought to be raised by way of an Election Petition,
if the rules provide for the same, or alternatively, a civil suit.
22.3 An alleged discrepancy between the number of proximity cards
scanned and the actual votes cast is based on mere ipse dixit of the
petitioners and is not evidence of bogus voting. This alleged difference,
without conceding that there was a difference, could be due to a technical
error which prevented scanning of the proximity cards. However, as long as
a person‟s name is in the voter‟s list and he is in possession of the proximity
card, he/she would be eligible to cast their vote, irrespective of whether the
card could be scanned or not.
22.4 Proximity cards were issued as proof of identity to ensure One Bar
One Vote. The respondent no. 1 has detailed the process of physical
verification of the proximity cards, and stated on oath that only voters
carrying a proximity card were allowed to vote. Thus, the NDBA Election
was conducted in a free and fair manner.
22.5 Moreover, the election was held in the Court complex on a working
day, where the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge and other Judicial
Officers were working in their office, and a large number of police forces
were deployed, however, no complaint was made to them regarding bogus
voting.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 28 of 70
Findings and Analysis:
23. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the
record.
24. The present writ petition challenges the Election Result of the NDBA,
Patiala House Courts, declared on 22
nd
March, 2025, primarily on the
ground that the said elections were not conducted in a free and fair manner
and large-scale rigging took place within the knowledge of the respondents.
As per the petitioners, during the course of the election process, some
supporters of certain candidates tried to illegally enter the polling station at
about 3:30 PM, without having valid and genuine proximity cards. Upon
objection, they created nuisance and disconnected the proximity scanning
machines and entered inside the polling station to cast bogus and duplicate
votes. Further, the miscreants created ruckus inside the polling booth for
about one and a half hours and captured the entire polling station. As per the
petitioners, during this period, the proximity scanning process was
altogether made not workable and the votes were cast by unverified
members.
25. Further, as per the petitioners, there was a discrepancy in the number
of votes cast and number of proximity cards scanned. Thus, it is the case of
the petitioners that the total number of votes cast in the election was two
thousand thirty four (2034), however, the proximity cards which were
scanned were one thousand eight hundred fifty (1850). Therefore, a large
number of bogus voting took place and the election was rigged.
26. It is to be noted that, in all, seventy five (75) members of NDBA
contested the election for thirteen (13) posts. Sixty two (62) candidates were
not successful in the election, out of which, only nine (9) have filed the
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 29 of 70
present writ petition.
27. Responding to the aforesaid allegations, preliminary objection was
raised by the respondents as regards non-maintainability of the present writ
petition, on account of various disputed questions of facts being raised and a
civil suit being the correct forum for raising these disputed questions of
facts.
28. With respect to the disputes regarding the conduct of elections, it is a
settled position of law that such disputes ought to be raised and adjudicated
in an Election Petition/civil suit, and not by filing a petition under Article
226 of the Constitution. There is no gainsaying that all the alleged
discrepancies as pointed out in the writ petition, are disputed questions of
facts, and their veracity can only be tested in duly constituted proceedings,
in accordance with law, upon leading of evidence.
29. Thus, holding that in case of any dispute regarding elections, an
Election Petition, if permitted under the rules, ought to be filed, and if there
is no provision for an Election Petition, then a civil suit should be filed, the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Javed Rahat & Ors Versus Bar
Council of India & Ors
5
, held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
22. It is well settled by a series of judgments by the Supreme Court
that when the election process commences, there should not be any
interference by the Courts. It is only after the election results are
declared and the persons elected assume the charge of the office,
that an election petition, if permitted under the rules, can be filed. If
there is no provision for an election petition, then a civil suit should
be filed. However, the Court should not interfere once the election
process has started. Even if the elections are over a writ petition
challenging the election should not be entertained, and the
5
2006 SCC OnLine Del 122.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 30 of 70
petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy of filing an
election petition, and if there is no provision for an election petition,
them he should file a civil suit.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
30. It is to be noted that the NDBA is a private body of individual
lawyers, which is registered with the Registrar of Societies. The
Memorandum of the NDBA Constitution provides for elections to be
conducted by the Returning Officer duly appointed by the Bar Association.
Clause 8(b) of the Memorandum of the Constitution of NDBA, Patiala
House Courts, reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
8. a)…………….
b) The office bearers and the members of the Executive Committee of
the Association shall be elected by secret ballot. No office bearer and
member of the Executive Committee shall be eligible to hold office for
more than two (sic) consecutive years. (At this meeting, The
Returning Officer shall be appointed who shall conduct elections, in
case of contest for various offices).
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
31. Perusal of the Memorandum of NDBA shows that there is no
provision in the said Memorandum with respect to the eventuality which
may arise in case of a challenge to the election of any candidate, i.e., the
right to office of any candidate duly declared successful in the election
process. In this regard, reference may be made to Explanation I of Section 9
of CPC, which provides that when right to office and property is contested,
the same is civil in nature, and jurisdiction lies with the civil courts only.
Explanation I of Section 9 of CPC, reads as under:
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 31 of 70
“xxx xxx xxx
9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred.—The Courts shall
(subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try
all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is
either expressly or impliedly barred.
Explanation I. — A suit in which the right to property or to an office
is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such
right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious
rites or ceremonies.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
32. Thus, in the present case, a civil suit would be the proper forum for
raising and agitating the various issues with respect to conduct of elections
of NDBA.
33. The Supreme Court in the case of N.P. Ponnuswami Versus
Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Others
6
, while
emphasizing the importance of bringing the election process to culmination
in a democratic polity, held that the results of the election could be
challenged by way of a duly instituted Election Petition. Thus, it has been
held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
25. The conclusions which I have arrived at may be summed up briefly
as follows:
(1) Having regard to the important functions which the
legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has
always been recognised to be a matter of first importance that
elections should be concluded as early as possible according
to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes
arising out of elections should be postponed till after the
elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be
unduly retarded or protracted.
(2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme of the election
law in this country as well as in England is that no significance
6
(1952) 1 SCC 94.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 32 of 70
should be attached to anything which does not affect the
“election”; and if any irregularities are committed while it is
in progress and they belong to the category or class which,
under the law by which elections are governed, would have
the effect of vitiating the “election” and enable the person
affected to call it in question, they should be brought up
before a Special Tribunal by means of an election petition
and not be made the subject of a dispute before any court
while the election is in progress.
26. It will be useful at this stage to refer to the decision of the Privy
Council in Theberge v. Laudry [Theberge v. Laudry, (1876) 2 AC 102
(PC)]. The petitioner in that case having been declared duly elected a
member to represent an electoral district in the Legislative Assembly
of the Province of Quebec, his election was afterwards, on petition,
declared null and void by judgment of the superior court, under the
Quebec Controverted Elections Act, 1875, and himself declared guilty
of corrupt practices, both personally and by his agents. Thereupon, he
applied for special leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council, but it
was refused on the ground that the fair construction of the Act of 1875
and the Act of 1872 which preceded it providing among other things
that the judgment of the superior court “shall not be susceptible of
appeal” was that it was the intention of the legislature to create a
tribunal for the purpose of trying election petitions in a manner which
should make its decision final for all purposes, and should not annex
to it the incident of its judgment being reviewed by the Crown under
its prerogative.
27. In delivering the judgment of the Privy Council, Lord Cairns
observed as follows: (Theberge case [Theberge v. Laudry, (1876) 2
AC 102 (PC)], AC p. 106)
“… These two Acts of Parliament, the Acts of 1872 and 1875, are
Acts peculiar in their character. They are not Acts constituting or
providing for the decision of mere ordinary civil rights; they are
Acts creating an entirely new, and up to that time unknown,
jurisdiction in a particular court … for the purpose of taking out,
with its own consent, of the Legislative Assembly, and vesting in
that Court, that very peculiar jurisdiction which, up to that time,
had existed in the Legislative Assembly of deciding election
petitions, and determining the status of those who claimed to be
members of the Legislative Assembly. A jurisdiction of that kind is
extremely special, and one of the obvious incidents or
consequences of such a jurisdiction must be that the jurisdiction, by
whomsoever it is to be exercised, should be exercised in a way that
should as soon as possible become conclusive, and enable the
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 33 of 70
constitution of the Legislative Assembly to be distinctly and
speedily known.”
28. After dealing with certain other matters, the Lord Chancellor
proceeded to make the following further observations: (Theberge
case [Theberge v. Laudry, (1876) 2 AC 102 (PC)], AC pp. 107-08)
“Now, the subject-matter, as has been said, of the legislation is
extremely peculiar. It concerns the rights and privileges of the
electors and of the Legislative Assembly to which they elect
members. Those rights and privileges have always in every colony,
following the example of the mother country, been jealously
maintained and guarded by the Legislative Assembly. Above all,
they have been looked upon as rights and privileges which pertain
to the Legislative Assembly, in complete independence of the
Crown, so far as they properly exist. And it would be a result
somewhat surprising, and hardly in consonance with the general
scheme of the legislation, if, with regard to rights and privileges of
this kind, it were to be found that in the last resort the
determination of them no longer belonged to the Legislative
Assembly, no longer belonged to the Superior Court which the
Legislative Assembly had put in its place, but belonged to the
Crown in Council, with the advice of the advisers of the Crown at
home, to be determined without reference either to the judgment of
the Legislative Assembly, or of that Court which the Legislative
Assembly had substituted in its place.”
29. The points which emerge from this decision may be stated as
follows:
(1) The right to vote or stand as a candidate for election is not a
civil right but is a creature of statute or special law and must be
subject to the limitations imposed by it.
(2) Strictly speaking, it is the sole right of the legislature to
examine and determine all matters relating to the election of its
own members, and if the legislature takes it out of its own hands
and vests in a Special Tribunal an entirely new and unknown
jurisdiction, that special jurisdiction should be exercised in
accordance with the law which creates it.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
34. On similar lines is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Versus Chief Election Commissioner,
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 34 of 70
New Delhi and Others
7
, wherein, it has been held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
26. The heart of the matter is contained in the conclusions
summarised by the Court thus:
“(1) Having regard to the important functions which the
legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has
always been recognised to be a matter of first importance that
elections should be concluded as early as possible according to
time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes
arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections
are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly
retarded or protracted.
(2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme of the
election law in this country as well as in England is that no
significance should be attached to anything which does not affect
the „election‟; and, if any irregularities are committed while it is
in progress and they belong to the category or class which, under
the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of
vitiating the „election‟ and enable the person affected to call it in
question, they should be brought up before a special tribunal by
means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a
dispute before any court while the election is in progress.”
After elaborately setting out the history in England and in India of
election legislation vis-a-vis dispute-resolution, Fazl Ali, J. stated:
“If the language used in Article 329(b) is considered against
this historical background, it should not be difficult to see why the
framers of the Constitution framed that provision in its present
form and chose the language which had been consistently used in
certain earlier legislative provisions and which had stood the test
of time.”
Likewise the Court discussed the connotation of the expression
“election” in Article 329 and observed:
“That word has by long usage in connection with the process
of selection or proper representatives in domestic institutions,
acquired both a wide and a narrow meaning. In the narrow sense,
it is used to mean the final selection of a candidate which may
embrace the result of the poll when there is polling or a
7
(1978) 1 SCC 405.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 35 of 70
particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is no
poll. In the wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire
process culminating in a candidate being declared elected .... it
seems to me that the word „election‟ has been used in Part XV of
the Constitution in the wide sense, that is to say, to connote the
entire procedure to be gone through to return a candidate to the
legislature ..... That the word “election” bears this wide meaning
whenever we talk of elections in a democratic country, is borne
out by the fact that in most of the books on the subject and in
several cases dealing with the matter, one of the questions mooted
is, when the election begins?”
The rainbow of operations, covered by the compendious expression
“election”, thus commences from the initial notification and
culminates in the declaration of the return of a candidate. The
paramount policy of the Constitution-framers in declaring that no
election shall be called in question except the way it is provided for in
Article 329(b) and the Representation of the People Act, 1951,
compels us to read, as Fazl Ali, J. did in Ponnuswami the Constitution
and the Act together as an integral scheme. The reason for
postponement of election litigation to the post-election stage is that
elections shall not unduly be protracted or obstructed. The speed and
promptitude in getting due representation for the electors in the
legislative bodies is the real reason suggested in the course of
judgment.
27. Thus far everything is clear. No litigative enterprise in the
High Court or other court should be allowed to hold up the on-going
electoral process because the parliamentary representative for the
constituency should be chosen promptly. Article 329 therefore covers
“electoral matters”. One interesting argument, urged without success
in Ponnuswami elicited a reasoning from the Court which has some
bearing on the question in the present appeal. That argument was that
if nomination was part of election a dispute as to the validity of the
nomination was a dispute relating to election and could be called in
question, only after the whole election was over, before the Election
Tribunal. This meant that the Returning Officer could have no
jurisdiction to decide the validity of a nomination, although Section 36
of the Act conferred on him that jurisdiction. The learned Judge
dismissed this argument as without merit, despite the great dialectical
ingenuity in the submission. In this connection the learned Judge
observed:
“Under Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act,
1951, it is the duty of the Returning Officer to scrutinize the
nomination papers to ensure that they comply with the
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 36 of 70
requirements of the Act and decide all objections which may be
made to any nomination. It is clear that unless this duty is
discharged properly, any number of candidates may stand for
election without complying with the provisions of the Act and a
great deal of confusion may ensue. In discharging the statutory
duty imposed on him, the Returning Officer does not call in
question any election. Scrutiny of nomination papers is only a
stage, though an important stage, in the election process. It is one
of the essential duties to be performed before the election can be
completed, and anything done towards the completion of the
election proceeding can by no stretch of reasoning be described
as questioning the election. The fallacy of the argument lies in
treating a single step taken in furtherance of an election as
equivalent to election. The decision of this appeal however turns
not on the construction of the single word „election‟, but on the
construction of the compendious expression — „no election shall
be called in question‟ in its context and setting, with due regard
to the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the
Representation of the People Act, 1951. Evidently, the argument
has no bearing on this method of approach to the question posed
in this appeal, which appears to me to be the only correct
method.”
28. What emerges from this perspicacious reasoning, if we may
say so with great respect, is that any decision sought and rendered
will not amount to “calling in question” an election if it subserves the
progress of the election and facilitates the completion of the election.
We should not slur over the quite essential observation “Anything
done towards the completion of the election proceeding can by no
stretch of reasoning be described as questioning the election.”
Likewise, it is fallacious to treat “a single step taken in furtherance of
an election” as equivalent to election.
29. Thus, there are two types of decisions, two types of challenges.
The first relates to proceedings which interfere with the progress of
the election. The second accelerates the completion of the election and
acts in furtherance of an election. So, the short question before us, in
the light of the illumination derived from Ponnuswami is as to whether
the order for re-poll of the Chief Election Commissioner is “anything
done towards the completion of the election proceeding” and whether
the proceedings before the High Court fecilitated the election process
or halted its progress. The question immediately arises as to whether
the relief sought in the writ petition by the present appellant amounted
to calling in question the election. This, in turn, revolves round the
point as to whether the cancellation of the poll and the reordering of
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 37 of 70
fresh poll is “part of election” and challenging it is “calling it in
question”.
30. The plenary bar of Article 329(b) rests on two principles: (1)
The peremptory urgency of prompt engineering of the whole election
process without intermediate interruptions by way of legal
proceedings challenging the steps and stages in between the
commencement and the conclusion. (2) The provision of a special
jurisdiction which can be invoked by an aggrieved party at the end
of the election excludes other form, the right and remedy being
creatures of statutes and controlled by the Constitution. Durga
Shankar Mehta has affirmed this position and supplemented it by
holding that, once the Election Tribunal has decided, the prohibition
is extinguished and the Supreme Court's overall power to interfere
under Article 136 springs into action. In Hari Vishnu this Court
upheld the rule in Ponnuswami excluding any proceeding, including
one under Article 226, during the on-going process of election,
understood in the comprehensive sense of notification down to
declaration. Beyond the declaration comes the election petition, but
beyond the decision of the Tribunal the ban of Article 329(b) does
not bind.
31. If “election” bears the larger connotation, if “calling in
question” possesses a semantic sweep in plain English, if policy and
principle are tool for interpretation of statutes, language permitting,
the conclusion is irresistible, even though the argument contra may
have emotional impact and ingenious appeal, that the catch-all
jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot consider the correctness,
legality or otherwise of the direction for cancellation integrated with
re-poll. For, the prima facie purpose of such a re-poll was to restore
a detailed poll process and to complete it through the salvationary
effort of a re-poll. Whether, in fact or law, the order is validly made
within his powers or violative of natural justice can be examined
later by the appointed instrumentality viz. the Election Tribunal.
That aspect will be explained presently. We proceed on the footing
that re-poll in one polling station or in many polling stations, for good
reasons, is lawful. This shows that re-poll in many or all segments, all
pervasive or isolated, can be lawful. We are not considering whether
the act was bad for other reasons. We are concerned only to say that
if the regular poll, for some reasons, has failed to reach the goal of
choosing by plurality the returned candidate and to achieve this object
a fresh poll (not a new election) is needed, it may still be a step in the
election. The deliverance of Dunkirk is part of the strategy of counter-
attack. Wise or valid, is another matter.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 38 of 70
32. On the assumption, but leaving the question of the validity of
the direction for re-poll open for determination by the Election
Tribunal, we hold that a writ petition challenging the cancellation
coupled with re-poll amounts to calling in question a step in
“election” and is therefore barred by Article 329(b). If no re-poll had
been directed the legal perspective would have been very different.
The mere cancellation would have then thwarted the course of the
election and different considerations would have come into play We
need not chase a hypothetical case.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
35. This Court in the case of Arghya Kumar Nath Versus Prof. D.S.
Rawat & Ors.
8
, has clarified that the results of elections of bodies such as
Bar Associations, which are governed by their own Bye-Laws, Rules and
Regulations, can ordinarily not be challenged by invoking writ jurisdiction,
which lies primarily for enforcement of public/statutory duties. Thus, it has
been held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
13. This Court is also of the opinion that the power of judicial review
conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution is designed to
prevent cases of abuse of power and neglect of duty by public
authorities. A writ lies where performance of a public or statutory
duty is involved. Writs can also be issued against private authorities
discharging public functions, provided the decision sought to be
challenged or enforced is in discharge of a public function.
14. Consequently, elections of bar association/society/trade
union/college union is a matter of internal management, which does
not entitle the aggrieved party to a public remedy like a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
36. To similar effect is the judgment in the case of Rajghor Ranjhan
Jayantilal Versus Election Scrutiny Committee of Bombay Bar
8
2014 SCC OnLine Del 4622.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 39 of 70
Association and another
9
, wherein, it has once again been held that the
election results of Bar Associations cannot be challenged by way of a writ
petition and that the appropriate remedy would be to file a civil suit. The
relevant extracts from the said judgment, read as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are not
persuaded to accept the contentions, as urged on behalf of the
Petitioner, that any relief can be granted to the Petitioner, by
entertaining this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.
This, firstly, for the reason that we cannot accept the Petitioner's
contention that the Bombay Bar Association is a „State‟ under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India. We are informed by Mr. Tally
that the Bombay Bar Association is an Association of Persons
(AOP), having its byelaws and Rules. It does not receive any
aid/financial assistance from the government to meet its
expenditures, nor does the government have any other form of
controlling stake either in the establishment or in the management
or administration of the bar association. There is no deep or
pervasive “State control” in the management of its affairs.
Furthermore, the functions of the Bombay Bar Association do not
relate/or are governmental functions. For all these reasons the
Bombay Bar Association cannot be held to be a „State‟ under Article
12 of the Constitution of India. Thus, on this ground alone, we
cannot entertain this Petition. We may observe that the alternate
remedy for the Petitioner, if at all, would be to file a Civil Suit for
redressal of any election grievance which the Petitioner has.
8. Be that as it may, the issues which are raised in the Petition
concern the elections of the Standing Committee of the bar
association. Election itself is a creature of the statute. Such elections
are held according to the Rules and Regulations. If the Petitioner
has any grievance regarding the same, certainly the remedy for the
Petitioner cannot be to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
37. The aforesaid view was reiterated in the case of Abhijeet Appasaheb
Bacche-Patil and Others Versus Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa
9
2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1118.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 40 of 70
through its Chairman and Another
10
, by holding that election disputes of
Bar Associations are essentially of a private nature and involve disputed
questions of facts. Therefore, a civil suit, as opposed to writ petition, is the
more appropriate remedy for adjudication of such disputes. The relevant
portion of the said judgment, reads as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
8. We may observe that the bar associations are either societies
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, or trusts, they
are governed by their own bye-laws or rules. Certainly, there is no
deep or pervasive control of the Government or even of the Bar
Council on the bar associations. They are governed by a managing
committee which is elected by its members. There is hence, neither
any control nor any interference of the Government in the functions
of the bar association, much less on their elections or day to day
functioning. The managing committee looks after the welfare of its
members. The Bar Associations, in the interest of its members, day-
in and day-out issue circulars, notices, notifications, etc. If all such
activities, actions and decisions of the bar association are to be held
to be subject, to the judicial review of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by reaching to a conclusion
that the bar association is a “State” within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution, in our opinion, this would certainly
lead to a chaotic situation. The State of Maharashtra has 36 districts,
each district has number of talukas and each taluka is likely to have a
bar association, which would be governed by their own rules and
regulations. If we accept petitioner's contention that the petition be
entertained, in such event “any dispute whatsoever” between the
members and the bar associations, the High Court would be required
to exercise its power of judicial review by entertaining writ petitions
under Article 226 of the Constitution and adjudicate such disputes.
9. In our opinion, if we entertain writ petitions on such causes,
things would not stop only at the bar associations formed by
advocates, as the same logic would be required to be applied to
associations of other professional bodies like the associations of
Doctors, Chartered Accountant, Engineers to name a few, which
also discharge duties towards its members and citizens. Thus, it is a
proposition too wide that a writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution, be held to be maintainable, in regard to any inter
10
2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1514.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 41 of 70
se dispute between the petitioner and respondent no. 2- Bar
Association. We may also observe that invariably such dispute would
also involve disputed questions of facts, which in any event cannot
be gone into in any adj udication under Article 226 of
the Constitution.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
38. Similarly, in the case of Secretary Alipore Bar Association Versus
Subir Sengupta and Others
11
, it has been ruled that election disputes of Bar
Associations, which are essentially private in character, cannot be raised by
way of petitions under Article 226. Any party aggrieved by the result of an
election would be well advised to approach the common law forum of
competent Civil Court. Thus, the said judgment holds as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
19. Regard being had to our discussion Supra we feel constrained to
hold here that the Alipore Bar Association being not a state “other
authority” or “agency or instrumentality” of the state within the
meaning of Article 12 and “authority or person” discharging public
function within the meaning of Article 226, writ against Alipore Bar
Association that too in the matter of election to the Bar Association
is not maintainable. In other words Alipore Bar Association is not
amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. We would like to
clarify here that a Bar Association can be made party in a writ
petition along with other statutory authority/authorities discharging
statutory/sovereign function for the limited purpose that the order
passed under writ jurisdiction shall be binding on that Bar
Association. If we follow the matter of the Bar Association as
emphasis laid in different decisions by Hon'ble Supreme Court and
different High Court as discussed supra, in the same corollary can
we say that the employees association of different court including
High Court are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court
only because the members of such association are indispensable for
delivery of justice.
xxx xxx xxx
22. Having held that the writ petition under Article 226 against the
Bar Association is not maintainable, saving the exception discussed
11
2024 SCC OnLine Cal 3597.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 42 of 70
supra, we do not propose to embark on discussion regarding merit of
the case. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is
set aside. The writ petition having held to be not maintainable all the
orders passed in the writ petition and the interim order passed in this
appeal become non-est in the eye of law. The election having been
held as per schedule in the notice dated 27.02.2024, the result of the
election be published by the Election Officer forthwith.
23. Any party aggrieved by result of the election or any party
desirous of raising an “election dispute”, if so advised, may move
the common law forum i.e. the competent Civil Court for redressal
of his/their grievance within the time limited by law.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
39. Likewise, the Supreme Court in the case of Boddula Krishnaiah and
Another Versus State Election Commissioner, A.P. and Others
12
, held as
follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
11. Thus, it would be clear that once an election process has been set
in motion, though the High Court may entertain or may have
already entertained a writ petition, it would not be justified in
interfering with the election process giving direction to the election
officer to stall the proceedings or to conduct the election process
afresh, in particular when election has already been held in which
the voters were allegedly prevented from exercising their franchise.
As seen, that dispute is covered by an election dispute and remedy is
thus available at law for redressal.
12. Under these circumstances, we hold that the order passed by the
High Court is not correct in law in giving direction not to declare
the result of the election or to conduct fresh poll for 20 persons,
though the writ petition is maintainable. The High Court, pending
writ petition, would not be justified in issuing direction to stall the
election process. It is made clear that though we have held that the
respondents are not entitled to the relief by interim order, this order
does not preclude any candidate including defeated candidate from
canvassing the correctness of the election. They are free, as held
earlier, to seek remedy by way of an election petition as provided in
the Act and the Rules.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
12
(1996) 3 SCC 416.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 43 of 70
40. On similar lines is the judgment in the case of Shiv Saran Upadhyay
and another Versus Bar Council of U.P. and others
13
, wherein, it has been
held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the
appropriate remedy for challenging an election, though in exceptional and
extraordinary circumstances, the High Court may entertain such writ
petitions. It was further held that an election dispute per se relating to a
society consisting of members of the Bar, did not involve any public
interest, or any violation of fundamental or statutory/legal right. Thus, it was
held as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
16. From the conspectus of judicial pronouncements referred
hereinabove, it is evident that a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution is not the appropriate remedy for challenging an
election, though in exceptional and extra ordinary circumstances,
the High Court may entertain such writ petitions. The question to be
considered, herein, is as to whether in the facts of the present case,
the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
should be entertained and is maintainable or not.
17. From the pleadings in the writ petition specially from
paragraphs 12 to 21 as also from the arguments advanced by the
learned Counsel for petitioners it is evident that the ground of
challenge raised by the petitioners for assailing the writ petition are
purely factual one, for which it is necessary that evidence be
adduced by the rival parties to establish their claim.
18. The summary proceedings in writ jurisdiction are not
appropriate proceedings for such an adjudication considering the
factual nature of the dispute raised by the petitioners. A regular
proceedings, where evidence can be adduced by the parties; the
same can be assessed depending upon their admissibility, reliability
and sufficiency and findings of fact can be recorded based thereon,
are more appropriate for adjudication of such disputes. Considering
the nature of the allegations oral evidence will also be required to be
led involving examination of witnesses and cross-examination
thereof. In paragraph 19 of the writ petition, the petitioners have
13
2015 SCC OnLine All 8770.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 44 of 70
referred to some video recording of the Chairman of Elders
Committee. The veracity of such recording, the admission, if any,
contained therein and the explanation which may be offered for the
same, will have to be scrutinized and examined in detail which will
require leading of oral evidence i.e., examination of witnesses and
cross-examination, forensic examination of CD. which is alleged to
have been prepared by the petitioners, or some other persons,
keeping in mind the law on the said subject.
19. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition bald, vague averments have
been made that about 200 Election Officers were appointed out of
which many of them were strangers and many of them were not
members, without giving any specific detail in respect of this
allegation. Such allegations cannot form the basis for any
adjudication under Article 226 of the Constitution.
20. In paragraph 20 of the writ petition, it has been alleged that only
2200 votes were cast and remaining votes were fake. The writ
petition does not disclose the total number of votes cast in the
election in question. It is not possible in summary proceedings to
decide whether the alleged remaining votes were fake or not.
Similarly other allegations are also required to be proved by
adducing evidence with equal opportunity to the rival parties to lead
evidence in rebuttal and defend themselves. These factual issues are
not such as could be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution merely on exchange of affidavits.
21. The petition at hand is not a public interest litigation. It is not as
if members of the Bar in general have approached this Court
alleging large scale malpractice in the election or participation of
outsiders therein. The dispute herein is being raised by two persons
who claim to be aggrieved persons. These persons have to establish
their case based on evidence. It is not a case involving apparent
violation of fundamental or statutory/legal right. It is an election
dispute per-se relating to a society consisting of members of the Bar,
raised by two persons alleged to be aggrieved.
22. No doubt the Bar Association is a Court annexed association
and therefore, it does not stand on the same footing as any other
society. In a given situation, this Court will not be found wanting in
interfering even in respect to an election dispute relating to such Bar
Association if exceptional and extra ordinary circumstances exist.
Unfortunately in the present case the petitioners have not been able
to make out an exceptional and extra-ordinary case warranting
interference by this Court moreso in view of factual dispute
involved.
23. As far as constitution of Elders Committee is concerned, the
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 45 of 70
petitioner never approached this Court raising such grievance. They
participated in the election held by the said Committee without any
demurr. However, certain other members approached this Court by
means of Writ Petition No. 4744 (MS) of 2015 wherein this Court has
already given them liberty to approach the State Bar Council which
shall look into the matter and take a decision. Consequences shall
follow as per law. Moreover as per the Division Bench decision relied
upon by the petitioners themselves which has been passed in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 61100 of 2011 it has been held that the Bar
Council does not have any authority to interfere in the elections of Bar
Association and to stop the Elders Committee for taking steps for
holding the elections. In these circumstances this contention by itself
cannot form a ground for interference by this Court once the elections
have already been held.
24. The Central Bar Association indisputably is a society registered
under the provisions of the Act, 1860 which provides a mechanism
and forum for resolution of disputes pertaining to elections to the
Committee of Management of the society and the continuance of its
office bearers. Section 25 of the said Act as amended by State of U.P.
reads as under:
“25(1) The Prescribed Authority may, on a reference made to it by
the Registrar or by a least one-fourth of the members of a society
registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a summary manner
any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in
office of an office-bearer of such society, and may pass such orders
in respect thereof as it deems fit:
[Provided that the election of an office-bearer shall be set aside
where the prescribed authority is satisfied—
(a) that any corrupt practice has been committed by such
officebearer; or
(b) that the nomination of an candidate has been improperly
rejected; or
(c) that the result of the election in so far it concerns such office
bearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance
of any nomination or by the improper reception, refusal or
rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void
or by any non-compliance with the provisions of any rules of the
society.
Explanation I.—A person shall be deemed to have committed a
corrupt practice who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any
other person—
(i) induces, or attempts to induce, by fraud, intentional
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 46 of 70
misrepresentation, coercion or threat of injury, any elector to
give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate
or any person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not
to withdraw from being a candidate at the election;
(ii) with a view to inducing any elector to give or to refrain from
giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or to inducing any
person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to
withdraw from being, a candidate at the election, offers or gives
any money, or valuable consideration, or any place or
employment, or holds out any promise of individual advantage
or profit to any person;
(iii) abets (within the meaning of the Penal Code, 1860) the
doing of any of the acts specified in clauses (i) and (ii);
(iv) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or elector to
believe that he, or any person in whom he is interested, will
become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or
spiritual censure;
(v) Canvasses on grounds of cast, community, sect or religion;
(vi) commits such other practice as the Stale Government may
prescribe to be a corrupt practice;
Explanation II.—A promise of individual advantage or profit to a
persons includes a promise for the benefit of the person himself, or
of any one in which he is interested.
Explanation III.—The State Government may prescribe the
procedure for hearing and decision of doubts or disputes in respect
of such elections and make provision in respect of any other matter
relating to such elections for which insufficient provision exists in
this Act or in the rules of the society.]”
xxx xxx xxx
27. Assuming for a moment that the remedy available under section
25(1) of the Act, 1860 is not an efficacious remedy for some reason,
the petitioners can very well resort to regular proceedings before the
Civil Court which is most suited for resolution of such dispute.
Reference may be made in this regard to para 26 of the Division
Bench Judgment rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61100 of
2011 wherein also the Court observed that the election can be
challenged either under section 25 of the Act 1860 or in the Civil
Court for redressal of their grievance.
28. There are catena of decisions on this issue as regards the
availability of remedy before the Civil Court for challenging such
elections where disputed questions of fact are involved where
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 47 of 70
summary proceedings under section 25 of the Act, 1860 is not an
efficacious remedy. This judgment need not be burdened with
reference to such pronouncements. Moreso, as, there is a direct
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagri Pracharini
Sabha v. Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi,
[1991 Supp (2) SCC 36.] on this issue, wherein some of the
respondents and others before the Supreme Court instituted a suit in
a Civil Court challenging the election of Managing Committee and
other office bearers of a society registered under the Societies
Registration Act and asked for rendition of accounts. A preliminary
objection as to the maintainability of the civil suit grounded on
sections 23 and 25 of the Act was raised. The Courts below held that
suit was not barred. Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court has
held as under:
“2. A litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has,
independently of an statute, a right to institute a suit in the Civil
Court unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
The position is well settled that exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil
Court is not to be readily inferred and such exclusion must be
either express or implied.”
“3………………………………………………………………………
4. what is really in dispute is the application of the rule to the
facts of the case. To ascertain whether the suit would be barred, the
effect of the provisions of sections 23 and 25 of the Registration Act
with the U.P. Amendments has to be consumed.”
……………… …………………………………………………………
We are of the view that provisions of section 23 are confined to
audit and have nothing to do with the relief of rendition of
accounts. No more is necessary to be said about that relief. Section
25 deals with disputes regarding challenge to the election of office
bearers. The maintainability of dispute within the purview of that
section is hedged with conditions and unless such requirement is
fulfilled, a statutory dispute would not be maintainable. The
present action in the Civil Court is by some of the members who
perhaps would not satisfy the requirements laid down in section 25.
It cannot be contended that section 25 having provided the pre-
conditions or the satisfaction of which a dispute within the purview
of that section would be maintainable before the Registrar takes
away the right of members of the society to claim relief otherwise
outside the purview of section 25 on the basis of their right to seek
remedy for their grievance. It is not the contention of Mr. Mukhoty
that the relief claimed is not one which would come within the
ambit of section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That being so,
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 48 of 70
we are of the view that the bar of section 25 is not applicable to the
facts of the case. Therefore, the conclusion reached in the Courts
below is correct and the suit is maintainable.”
29. The aforesaid decision virtually clinches the issue and leaves no
room for doubt that the petitioners herein, have a statutory remedy for
challenging the election in question as prescribed under section 25(1)
of the Act 1860 and also before the Civil Court by means of regular
civil proceedings to be initiated by filing a Regular Civil Suit. Even
this Court is of the view that it is the latter remedy which is more
appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case but it is for the
petitioners, who are the dominus litis to choose the forum to seek
redressal of their grievance. The petitioners have inter-alia prayed for
issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the election
proceedings of Central Bar Association, Lucknow conducted by the
Elders Committee on 2.9.2015. A writ of certiorari is issued for
correcting apparent error of judicial or quasi judicial bodies or
Tribunal or even any other person or authority exercising functions
involving decision of a lis or determination of rights of the parties.
Reference may be made in this regard to the decision of Supreme
Court in the case of Dwarikanath v. Income-tax Officer, [AIR 1966 SC
81.] T.C. Bassa v. T. Nagappa, [AIR 1954 SC 440.] and Udit Narain
Singh v. Additional Members, Board of Revenue. [AIR 1963 SC 786.]
The society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is
not a statutory body. It is is a private body which is registered in
accordance with an own Act 1860. Election proceedings of such a
society are neither judicial nor quasi judicial proceedings. They do
not involve the exercise of judicial or quasi judicial power by any
authority nor decision of any lis between the parties or adjudication
of their rights per-se. It is doubtful if writ of certiorari or a writ in
the nature of certiorari could be issued under Article 226 of the
Constitution for quashing the election proceedings of a society, even
if, it is a Court annexed body. The appropriate relief/remedy in such
a case is to seek a declaration in respect to the election proceedings.
Even assuming such a writ could be issued, considering the nature
of the dispute involved, this writ petition is not maintainable.
30. In view of above discussions, this Court does not find any valid
ground nor any extra-ordinary circumstances to entertain this writ
petition in exercise of its extra-ordinary discretionary power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition in the facts
of the present case is not maintainable and the same is accordingly
dismissed only for this reason, leaving it open for the petitioners to
avail such remedy as they may choose in the light of what has been
stated hereinabove. It is made clear that this Court has not
adjudicated the merits of the controversy and the dismissal of this writ
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 49 of 70
petition shall not prejudice the petitioners herein, in any manner
whatsoever, while availing the remedy as aforesaid.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
41. Accordingly, a pure election dispute challenging the result of an
election, on the basis of disputed questions of facts, is purely a private
dispute, which ought to be raised by way of an Election Petition, if the rules
provide for the same, or, alternatively by filing a civil suit. The present
petition, being in the nature of an election dispute, whereby, the petitioners
are seeking to agitate a purely private cause/interest, i.e., to assert a right to
be elected as an office bearer of the NDBA, is not maintainable. Thus,
consistent with the established position of law, challenges to the conduct of
an election are appropriately addressed in an Election Petition or a civil suit,
and not through a writ petition.
42. It is also the case of the petitioners that Bar Associations perform
public function under the Advocates Act, 1961, and are therefore, amenable
to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is
contended that election process of the Bar Association involves matters of
public interest, as it governs the representation of Advocates, who are
officers of the Court and are integral to the administration of justice.
Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Board of Control For
Cricket in India Versus Cricket Association of Bihar and Others
14
, to
contend that Supreme Court has held that a private body discharging public
functions is subject to writ jurisdiction. Reliance is also made on the
judgment in the case of P.K. Dash, Advocate Versus Bar Council of Delhi
14
(2015) 3 SCC 251.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 50 of 70
& Ors.
15
, to submit that Supreme Court has held that activities of the Bar
Associations have a predominantly public character, and can, in many
instances, affect Court functioning.
43. As regards the aforesaid judgments relied upon by the petitioners,
though, there is no quarrel with the propositions as laid down in the said
judgments, however, the said judgments do not have any applicability to the
facts and circumstances of the present case.
44. No doubt, the disputes pertaining to Bar Associations can have a
public character and be amenable to writ jurisdiction in certain
circumstances. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court
Bar Association and Others Versus B.D. Kaushik
16
, Court annexed Bar
Associations comprise primarily of members practicing in the said Court,
and have an important role in regulating their conduct, and thereby ensuring
proper assistance to the Court. Such Associations, therefore, inevitably have
an important role in the administration of justice. Thus, disputes pertaining
to the aforesaid aspects of a Bar Association‟s functioning, namely, rules
governing its constitution and membership, its role in regulating the conduct
of its members or decisions pertaining to infrastructure afforded to it by the
Court itself, such as the library or canteen for its members, may have a
public character. However, a pure election dispute challenging the results of
an election does not have any public character and is a purely private
dispute.
45. Likewise, the judgment in the case of P.K. Dash (supra), while
reiterating that functions discharged by Bar Associations can have a public
15
2016 SCC OnLine Del 3493.
16
(2011) 13 SCC 774.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 51 of 70
character and affect Court functioning, unequivocally justified the exercise
of writ jurisdiction on the basis of the nature of the reliefs sought in the said
case, which according to the Court were, “intrinsically connected with the
public functioning of the Court”. It is to be noted that the reliefs sought in
the case of P.K. Dash (supra) were, firstly, incorporation of the One Bar
One Vote principle in relation to every Bar in Delhi, and secondly,
restriction of allotment of chamber to one Advocate in one Court complex
only. These issues, according to the Court, had an impact upon the efficient
functioning of the Bar Associations and growth of the Bar, and thereby,
upon the administration of justice. Thus, this Court exercised its writ
jurisdiction in the case of P.K. Dash (supra), in view of the nature of the
reliefs sought, and directed incorporation of two rules, one pertaining to
conduct of their elections; and second, pertaining to allotment of chambers,
both of which have wider ramifications for the functioning of the Bar and
therefore, the justice delivery system.
46. Thus, the aforesaid judgments as relied upon by the petitioners do not
assist and aid their case in any manner. The election process of NDBA or the
results declared thereof, are not connected to the functions of any State,
government or authority under the law, and further, the same are not
intrinsically connected with the public functioning of the Court. The
elections of the NDBA are purely elections of individual lawyers/members
of NDBA, wherein, these individual lawyers/members contested as well as
cast their votes. The result was also declared by the RO, who is also an
individual private person and member of the NDBA. Thus, the election
process of the NDBA and challenge thereto, in the facts and circumstances
of the present case, cannot be said to have any public character.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 52 of 70
47. Thus, the various issues raised in the writ petition constitute disputed
questions of facts, which require examination of oral and documentary
evidence, and cannot be decided in writ proceedings. Moreover, as
discussed, the challenge herein to the NDBA Election does not have any
public character.
48. Confronted with the aforesaid legal position and the objections raised
by the respondents in this regard, the petitioners at a later stage, for the
purposes of the present writ petition, waived all their previous contentions,
electing to proceed solely on the grounds of non-compliance of the mandate
of the judgment of the full bench of this Court in the case of Lalit Sharma
(supra), and contention related to the scanning of the proximity cards.
49. As per the petitioners, it was a mandate by this Court in the full bench
judgment of Lalit Sharma (supra) that for casting of votes, the requirement
was not only confined to „holding‟ of proximity cards, but that the
„scanning‟ of proximity cards was also mandatory. It is submitted that
against two thousand thirty four (2034) votes which were cast, only one
thousand eight hundred fifty (1850) proximity cards were scanned. Written
complaints were given by the petitioners to the RO and the Observer, on the
same day, but no action was taken with regard thereto.
50. The petitioners contended that all proximity cards were not scanned,
and that voters without digital verification of proximity cards and without
their biometrics having been scanned and verified, were allowed to enter the
polling area and cast their votes. Thus, it was sought to be contended that the
petitioners have raised no disputed questions of facts that require
adjudication in the present writ petition, and that the challenge by the
petitioners is confined to the aspect of deliberate non-compliance with the
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 53 of 70
directions of the full bench of this Court in Lalit Sharma (supra).
Consequently, it is sought to be contended that the present writ petition
would be maintainable, as this Court can certainly adjudicate regarding
compliance of the mandatory directions passed by full bench of this Court.
51. In this regard, the petitioners have contended that the RO and the
Election Commissioners were discharging a public function to ensure
compliance of the judgment and various orders passed by the full bench of
this Court. Therefore, it was not open to the RO to disobey the order of this
Court and allow voting to continue despite scanners being made
dysfunctional. Further, the election could not have been continued beyond
the stipulated time of the election, which again is an anomaly on the part of
the RO.
52. As regards the scrutiny of proximity cards, the RO, in her counter
affidavit, has stated as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
vii. I thus adopted multiple layer verification process by following a
process of physical verification of proximity cards apart from
Scanning of the card by the scanning agency, in as much as a
Returning Officer it was my responsibility to ensure fair conduct of
election. I accordingly, thus ensured the same by adding a process of
manual physical verification of each and every voter and ensured
that no one without a valid proximity card, could enter the voting
area. Such process further added to the mandatory condition of
voting only by Proximity card holders.
viii. Once the voter moved inside the reception area where the
detailed verification of voters was carried by me and my team with
list of proximity cards/voter list segregated / arranged alphabetically.
An adjacent counter was there where another team of returning
officers was sitting with a copy of the declaration forms of all the
eligible voters.
ix. After reaching the said area, every voter was counter checked
with the Hard copy of list of Proximity card issuers/holders once
again and a copy of their respective declaration form was provided
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 54 of 70
to them. After receiving the copy of Declaration Forms, the Voter
proceeded to another counter where his declaration form was drawn
and tallied with the proximity cards and upon finding the same in
order, his name was marked in alphabetical list on the next counter.
x. At that point of time, the red sticker which was pasted on the
proximity card was removed from the proximity card and pasted on
the respective declaration form and the declaration form was
handed over to the voter to proceed for casting his/her vote.
xi. There were Eight (8) voting booths, each equipped with
Electronic Voting Machines covered under a cordoned off area. I
and my team members were present along with the person/operator
from the company outside the EVM booths. At that place, the voter
was required to deposit the declaration form and enter the polling
booth to cast his/her vote. There were two extra booths available in
case of heavy traffic of voters and/or any kind of malfunction in any
of the machines at any point of time, to ensure smooth casting of
votes without any hindrances.
xii. Before casting votes, outside the EVM Booth, blue ink mark was
put on the finger of the voter to ensure that he/she does not enter the
polling area after casting the vote.
xiii. After casting votes, the voters were immediately asked to leave
the voting area from the exit gate.
xiv. It is pertinent to mention here that there was only one entry
point and one exit point for all purposes.
xxx xxx xxx
10. The voters only with valid proximity cards with their names
appearing in the voters list alone were allowed to vote in the elections
so conducted on 21.03.2025. Thus, the compliance to the guidelines
has been strict in conducting the present elections and there were no
bogus voters who had voted on the election day as alleged, which is
baseless and without any material to prove the said allegation. It is
pertinent to mention here that there were no specific directions /
instructions as to the process.
11. That assuming, without admitting, the error, if at all any, in the
scanning machines and computer systems, in failing to register scans,
still could not have allowed non-proximity card holders to vote.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
53. It is evident from the aforesaid affidavit that the RO has taken a firm
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 55 of 70
and definitive stand that voting in the NDBA Election was restricted solely
to those with valid proximity cards. The voters with valid proximity cards,
with their names appearing in the voters‟ list alone, were allowed to cast
their votes in the election. Further, the RO and her team also counter
checked each voter for possessing valid proximity card, and a copy of their
respective declaration form was provided to them. It was only after due
verification that the voters were allowed to proceed for casting their votes.
54. It has also come to the fore that before voters could enter the voting
booths to cast their votes, they were required to deposit the declaration
forms. Copy of the said declaration forms were in safe custody of the RO,
which were deposited before this Court during the course of hearing. Thus,
as per the clear deposition of the RO, no person without proximity cards
could enter the voting area or cast their votes, on account of the multi-layer
verification process adopted by the RO and her team.
55. The step-wise procedure as adopted by the RO and brought before
this Court, is reproduced as under:
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 56 of 70
56. Accordingly, there is nothing before this Court to suggest that any
unauthorized persons, without valid proximity cards, cast their votes in the
NDBA Election, or that there was any bogus voting.
57. Another issue raised by the petitioners is with regard to extension of
polling time. Concerning this issue, the RO has categorically stated that the
time for polling was from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM. There was no extension of
polling time and all voters present at the polling station before closing time,
were allowed to cast their vote. Further, no objection in that regard was
raised by anyone at any stage. Since there was no extension of the polling
time, as such, no permission was required from the Registrar of this Court.
58. The Court is satisfied with the aforesaid explanation given by the RO,
and accepts the same. Thus, no anomaly is found in the procedure followed
by the RO in that regard.
59. This Court also notes the stand on behalf of the Delhi High Court,
represented through the Registrar, as demonstrated in the counter affidavit,
relevant portions of which, are extracted as below:
“xxx xxx xxx
3. It is submitted that in terms of the directions passed by the Full
Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 10363/2021 titled
"Lalit Sharma and ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.", election of the
Executive Committees of all the District Court Bar Associations, Delhi
High Court Bar Association and all the Bar Associations annexed
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 57 of 70
with Tribunals in Delhi were held on 21.03.2025 and as per para
35(11.6) of the judgment dated 19.03.2024 in the said matter, casting
of votes was permitted only to holders of identity/proximity card.
4. Vide the said judgment in Lalit Sharma (supra), the Registry of
the Delhi High Court was directed to prepare ID/Proximity Cards,
and the role of the answering Respondent in the process of conduct
of elections was limited to this. Relevant paragraphs of the said
judgment are reproduced hereunder:
"30. However, this Court is in agreement with paragraph 10 of the
Committee's report dated 22
nd
September 2023 (reproduced in
paragraph 5 of this judgment) that it is imperative to prepare and
issue ID/Proximity Cards and RFID to all the members of all the
Bar Associations in Delhi. This exercise will not only address the
security concerns with regard to entry to Court premises but will
also ensure free and fair elections. This way an individual
practicing lawyer will carry an ID/Proximity Card clearly
mentioning the Bar Association, where he primarily practices and
intends to vote. The said ID/Proximity Cards shall be prepared by
the Registry of the Delhi High Court under the aegis and
supervision of the Audit as well as Security and Disaster
Management Committee of this Court. This would ensure that
only one uniform card is issued to all the lawyers practicing in
Delhi High Court and District Courts and Tribunals and would
do away with the need for multiple ID/Proximity Cards.
31. The exercise of holding a uniform election on one day for all
the Bar Associations should be held only after the exercise of
preparing proper ID/Proximity Cards and RFID for all lawyers is
completed, so as to ensure that the elections are conducted in a fair
and transparent manner. Consequently, this Court accepts the
recommendation contained in paragraph 10 of the Committee's
report dated 22nd September 2023 (reproduced in paragraph 5
hereinabove) and directs the Registry to issue ID/Proximity Cards
and RFID to all the members of the Bar Associations in Delhi
within six months."
(Emphasis added)
5. The proximity cards for eligible advocates were prepared after 04
(four) levels of scrutiny under the aegis of "Committee to conduct
Audit of Existing Rules and Measures: (i) To make Recommendations
regarding Security and Disaster Management of Delhi High Court
and all the District Courts; (ii) To propose Draft Rules; (iii) to
examine Existing Rules on the Issues and Suggest Amendments
"(Security Committee) of this Hon'ble Court by M/s. SEC
Communications Pvt. Ltd. (vendor appointed by PWD) and given to
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 58 of 70
respective Election Committees for onward distribution to concerned
advocates.
6. It is further submitted that "Committee to conduct Audit of Existing
Rules and Measures: (i) To make Recommendations regarding
Security and Disaster Management of Delhi High and all the District
Courts; (ii) To propose Draft Rules; (iii) to examine Existing Rules on
the Issues and Suggest Amendments", in its meeting dated 09.01.2025
decided and directed as under:
"It is submitted that the necessary arrangements for elections,
procurement of EVMs/ballot papers (as per their past
practice) and space for setting up card readers machines and
other arrangements are also to be made by the Election
Commissioners/Returning Officers, well in time...."
A copy of the said Minutes of Meeting dated 09.01.2025 of the
Security Committee is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-
A.
7. It is thus submitted that role of the Delhi High Court was limited
to provision/issuance of proximity cards only and the elections were
conducted by the respective Election Commissioner/Returning
Officer of Bar Association as per their past practice. It is pertinent to
mention that out of 2645 applications submitted on the "edba.in"
portal, a total of 2283 applications in respect of advocates of NDBA
(New Delhi Bar Association) were approved by the Delhi High Court
at Level- 4 after scrutiny at respective levels of verification. Total
2283 proximity cards prepared by the vendor were delivered to the
Chairperson, Election Committee, NDBA for distribution to
concerned advocates. A screenshot from the "edba.in" portal
showing the total number of applications approved for issuance of
proximity cards after four levels of scrutiny is annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE-B.
8. The aforesaid stand of the answering Respondent was also
recorded by this Hon'ble Court in its Order dated 25.03.2025 passed
in the captioned matter. Relevant part of the said Order is
reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"25. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 i.e.,
Registrar General of this Court, submits that the role of
the Delhi High Court in the present case, was only to the
extent of issuing the proximity cards. She submits that
after the issuance of the proximity cards, this Court does
not have any role in the matter."
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 59 of 70
60. Further, in its Note of Submissions dated 28
th
August, 2025, the
Registrar of this Court, on the role of this Court in the election process, has
stated as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
2. It is submitted that the elections were conducted by the respective
Election Commissioner/Returning Officer of Bar Association as per
their past practice and the role of Delhi High Court was limited to
provision/issuance of proximity cards only. In terms of the directions
passed by the Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition (C)
No. 10363/2021 titled "Lalit Sharma and ors. vs. Union of India and
Ors.", election of the Executive Committees of all the District Court
Bar Associations, Delhi High Court Bar Association and all the Bar
Associations annexed with Tribunals in Delhi were held on
21.03.2025 and as per para 35(11.6) of the judgment dated
19.03.2024 in the said matter, casting of votes was permitted only to
holders of identity/proximity cards. Vide the said judgment in Lalit
Sharma (supra) (para 30), the Registry of the Delhi High Court was
directed to prepare ID/Proximity Cards, and the role of the
answering Respondent in the process of conduct of elections was
limited to this.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
61. Thus, as per the clear stand of Registrar of this Court, casting of votes
in the elections of the Bar Associations of various District Courts was
permitted only to holders of proximity cards. Further, the role of this Court
in the process of conduct of election was limited to preparation of proximity
cards.
62. This brings the Court to the issue raised by the petitioners that the
election process in the present case violated the mandate of full bench of this
Court in the case of Lalit Sharma (supra), in that, individuals were allowed
to vote without scanning of proximity cards, since the scanning machines
were dysfunctional for some time. It is the case of the petitioners that
scanning of proximity cards was mandatory, and in absence thereof, the
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 60 of 70
categorical directions of this Court have been violated.
63. On this aspect, this Court has already noted the stand of the RO that
even assuming that the scanning machine was dysfunctional for some time,
only persons with valid proximity cards were allowed to vote after a multi-
layer scrutiny process.
64. It would be relevant at this stage to refer to the judgment of full bench
of this Court in the case of Lalit Sharma (supra). Relevant extracts on the
aspect of the issues involved in the present case, are reproduced as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
30. However, this Court is in agreement with Para 10 of the
Committee's report dated 22-9-2023 (reproduced in Para 5 of this
judgment) that it is imperative to prepare and issue ID/proximity
cards and RFID to all the members of all the Bar Associations in
Delhi. This exercise will not only address the security concerns with
regard to entry to court premises but will also ensure free and fair
elections. This way an individual practising lawyer will carry an
ID/proximity card clearly mentioning the Bar Association, where he
primarily practices and intends to vote. The said ID/proximity cards
shall be prepared by the Registry of the Delhi High Court under the
aegis and supervision of the audit as well as Security and Disaster
Management Committee of this Court. This would ensure that only
one uniform card is issued to all the lawyers practising in Delhi
High Court and District Courts and Tribunals and would do away
with the need for multiple ID/proximity cards.
31. The exercise of holding a uniform election on one day for all the
Bar Associations should be held only after the exercise of preparing
proper ID/proximity cards and RFID for all lawyers is completed, so
as to ensure that the elections are conducted in a fair and
transparent manner. Consequently, this Court accepts the
recommendation contained in Para 10 of the Committee's report
dated 22-9-2023 (reproduced in Para 5 hereinabove) and directs the
Registry to issue ID/proximity cards and RFID to all the members of
the Bar Associations in Delhi within six months.
xxx xxx xxx
35. Keeping in view the aforesaid, Para 11 of the Committee's report
is modified and shall read as under:
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 61 of 70
“11.1. The term of the Executive Committee of all the Bar
Associations shall be two years.
11.2. The election of the Executive Committee of all Bar Associations
shall be held on one day.
11.3. Since the term of the Executive Committee of the various Bar
Associations is not uniform, the first same day election of all Bar
Associations shall be held on Saturday, 19-10-2024.
11.4. Thereafter, the election be held on the Friday, immediately
preceding the Dussehra vacation of every alternate year. In case said
Friday is a court holiday in any court then the election would be held
on the next working Friday of all courts.
11.5. The advocate at the time of issuance of the identity
card/proximity card shall specify his/her choice of the Bar
Association, where he/she intends to cast the vote.
11.6. Casting of votes during the respective Bar Association
elections shall be permitted only to the holders of the identity
card/proximity card.
11.7. The casting of vote shall be only through the identity
card/proximity card to regulate the „one bar one vote‟ principle.
11.8. The Identity card/Proximity card would operate for casting
vote in the election of only one Bar Association at a time.
11.9. The advocate may change his/her option to vote in a Bar
Association election at any time. The request to change the option
must be certified by the Bar Association to which the advocate wishes
to change his/her option and must reach the Registrar of the High
Court concerned by 31st July of the year of the election.
11.10. Any request received later than 31st July of the year of the
election shall be considered for the next election.
11.11. All the Bar Associations shall commence the process of the
holding of elections and nominate the respective Election Committees
in terms of the judgment in P.K. Dash case [P.K. Dash v. Bar Council
of Delhi, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3493] by the 31st July of the year of
the election. The Constitution of the Election Committee and the
schedule of election shall be communicated to the Principal District
concerned and Sessions Judge in the case of the District Court or the
Registrar General in the case of the Delhi High Court by the 31st July
of the year of the election. This Election Committee will only take
decisions to ensure that elections are conducted on time and in a fair
and transparent manner. This Committee will not exercise any other
administrative function and will not be deemed to have superseded the
Executive Committee of the Bar Association.
11.12. Every advocate shall file the declaration form as stipulated by
the judgment in P.K. Dash case [P.K. Dash v. Bar Council of
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 62 of 70
Delhi, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 3493] on or before 31
st
July of the year
of the election.
11.13. The eligibility of the advocate to cast his/her vote in the
election shall be considered as on 31
st
July of the year of the election.
11.14. Only those eligible advocates who are not in arrears of their
subscription as on 31
st
July of the year of the election shall be entered
in the voters list.
11.15. Subscription shall be paid by the advocate concerned from
his/her own bank account, or his own electronic payment platform.
Cash deposit of subscription shall not be accepted.
11.16. Only bona fide practising advocates shall be permitted to cast
their vote and shall be entered in the voters list.
11.17. The following advocates would be considered bona fide
advocates:
(i) All designated Senior Advocates.
(ii) All advocates who have a standing of over 25 years.
(iii) Former judicial officers.
(iv) Advocates who have at least 12 appearances before courts
including Supreme Court, Tribunals and Arbitration Tribunals in a
span of a year.
(v) Partner or an associate of a registered law firm.
However, none of the aforesaid advocates would be considered
bona fide advocates if they have not cleared the All India Bar
Examination in the event the said condition had been stipulated
prior to their enrolment.
11.18. Advocates claiming voting rights on the basis of appearances
shall furnish the copies of the order sheets containing their names
either as a lead counsel or as an assisting counsel on or before 31st
July of the year of the election.
11.19. Advocates claiming voting rights on the basis of being a
partner or an associate of a law firm shall furnish, prior to 31st July
of the year of the election, a certificate from the equity partner of the
law firm along with proof of payment of professional remuneration for
at least six months.
11.20. Tentative list of eligible voters shall be displayed on the
respective court's website by the 16th August of the year of the
election. Objections shall be invited till 1st September and the final
list shall be displayed by the 15th September.”
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
65. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that by order dated 28
th
May,
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 63 of 70
2024 in Lalit Sharma writ
17
, this Court had dispensed the direction for
capturing the biometric of advocates/registered clerks for the issuance of
proximity cards in terms of the directions issued in Lalit Sharma (supra).
However, by a subsequent order dated 21
st
November, 2025, in Lalit
Sharma writ, the full bench of this Court has issued notice in an application
seeking re-call of the aforesaid order dated 28
th
May, 2024. Thus, the issue
with respect to capturing of biometric data of advocates/registered clerks, is
sub-judice before this Court.
66. Considering the directions issued in the Lalit Sharma (supra), as
reproduced hereinabove, it is manifest that the proximity cards were issued
as proof of identity to ensure compliance with the mandate of One Bar One
Vote. The casting of votes during the respective Bar Association elections
was permitted only to holders of the proximity card.
67. As noted in the preceding paragraphs, the counter affidavit filed by
the RO states in detail the process followed by the RO and her team, to
verify the eligibility of voters, including, physical verification of proximity
cards. The RO has categorically stated on oath that only those voters
carrying proximity cards were allowed to enter the voting area and the
polling area. Physical verification of the proximity cards was done at the
time of entering the voting area, and thereafter, before entering the polling
area as well, in consonance with the directions issued in Lalit Sharma
(supra) that only voters with valid proximity cards were entitled to vote.
68. In this regard, it may also be noted that the RO had issued Guidelines
for voters, whereby, it was made clear that proximity card was mandatory to
17
2024 SCC OnLine Del 4152.
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 64 of 70
cast vote and for identification purposes, and that no voter shall be permitted
to enter inside the polling area without their proximity card. The Guidelines
dated 20
th
March, 2025, issued by the RO in this regard, is reproduced
hereunder:
“xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx”
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 65 of 70
69. It bears mentioning that in its letter to the outgoing President of the
NDBA by the Chairperson of the NDBA Committee, 2024-25, i.e., the
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, it is stated that
the NDBA Committee had observed that the “… Proximity Card is an
Identity Proof of an Advocate/Voter for NDBA Election in itself”. The said
letter dated 13
th
February, 2025, is reproduced as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx”
70. It is important to note that in its Notice dated 17
th
March, 2025, the
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 66 of 70
NDBA Election Committee, 2024-25 stipulated that only members carrying
their proximity cards would be allowed to cast their votes, as proximity card
is the only acceptable proof of identity for casting votes. The said Notice is
reproduced as under:
“xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx”
71. It is significant to note that in the Minutes of Meeting held by the
Registrar on 17
th
March, 2025, it is stated clearly that in case of any dispute
or technical glitch, the respective election officers shall take their own call.
Relevant portion of the said Minutes of Meeting, is extracted as below:
“xxx xxx xxx
In view of the above, the vendor is directed to ensure that one time
entry is granted through proximity card and under no circumstance
multiple entries be allowed to voting area. It is further directed that
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 67 of 70
in case of any dispute or technical glitch, the respective Election
Officers shall take their own call.
xxx xxx xxx”
(Emphasis Supplied)
72. It is also worth noting that on the aspect of the allegations of
dysfunction of the scanning machines during the NDBA Election, in its
Reply under the Right to Information Act, 2005 this Court answered as
follows:
“xxx xxx xxx
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 68 of 70
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 69 of 70
xxx xxx xxx”
73. Thus, it has come to the fore that no complaint regarding any
malfunctioning of machines used for scanning of proximity cards was
received in this Court.
74. Considering the aforesaid discussion, it is established that as per the
mandate of full bench of this Court in the case of Lalit Sharma (supra), the
voters were required to hold/have in their possession, valid proximity cards.
As long as the proximity cards are duly verified, including, physical
verification, the mandate, as given in Lalit Sharma (supra), is satisfied.
75. Accordingly, on the basis of the pleadings and documents on record,
W.P.(C) 3646/2025 Page 70 of 70
no case is made out for interference by this Court. Consequently, no merit is
found in the present writ petition. However, the petitioners are granted
liberty to raise various issues pertaining to the election process of NDBA, by
way of filing a civil suit, if so advised. If such a civil suit is filed by the
petitioners, the same shall be considered and decided on its own merits,
without being influenced by the observations and findings in the present
case.
76. The record, as submitted by the RO, shall be duly kept and preserved
in the safe custody of the Registrar of this Court, to be provided to the
concerned authority at appropriate stage, as and when requisitioned.
77. Noting the aforesaid, the present writ petition is dismissed. The
pending applications are also accordingly, disposed of.
MINI PUSHKARNA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 5, 2026
au/ak
Legal Notes
Add a Note....