Birender Sangwan vs High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee And Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 01.06.2026
% Judgment Delivered on: 06.06.2026
+ W.P.(C) 7531/2026 & CM APPL. 38415/2026
RAMAN GANDHI .....Petitioner
Versus
BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 7532/2026, CM APPL. 38198/2026, CM APPL.
38381/2026 & CM APPL. 38416/2026
BIRENDER SANGWAN .....Petitioner
Versus
HIGH-POWERED ELECTION SUPERVISORY &
COMMITTEE AND ORS. .....Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 7533/2026, CM APPL. 38417/2026 & CM APPL.
38418/2026
SHAILY TARAR AND ORS .....Petitioner
Versus
BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents
AND
+ W.P.(C) 7972/2026 & CM APPL. 38276/2026
RUDRA VIKRAM SINGH .....Petitioner
Versus
BAR COUNCIL OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents
COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS
Ms. Sangita Malhotra, Adv. with Petitioner(s) in person in W.P.(C)
No.7531/2026, 7532/2026 & 7533/2026.
Mr. Sunil Dalal, Ms. Priya Hingorani, Sr. Advs. along with Mr. B. S.
Jakhar, Mr. Rajesh Mishra, Mr. Ramit Sehrawat, Ms. Garima
Bhardwaj, Mr. Vikram Singh Jakhar, Mr. Murari Tiwari, Mr. Rahul
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
Sharma, Mr. Rajpal and Mr. Neeraj Jakhar, Advs. in W.P.(C)
7532/2026.
Ms. Shobha Gupta, Mr. Gaurav Kumar Meena, Ms. Simranjeet Kaur,
Ms. Akshita Mishra and Ms. Manasvi Negi, Advs. along with
Petitioner in person in W.P.(C) 7532/2026.
Ms. Anushkaa Arora, Ms. Aarti Tyagi, Mr. Manish Jain and Ms. Anju
Tanwar, Ms. Shaheen Mansoori and Mr. Kunal Israney, Advs. in
W.P.(C) No.7532/2026.
Ms. Aarti Tyagi, Mr. Shaheen Mansoori, Mr. Udit, Ms. Shalu Sharma,
Ms. Anju Dixit, Mr. Prakash Dwevdi, Mr. Dev Raj Sharma, Ms.
Sunita Bhaskar, Dr. Lalit Bhasin and Ms. Nina Gupta, all candidates
in person in W.P.(C) 7533/2026.
P-2 & P-4 in-person in W.P.(C) 7533/2026.
Ms. Kiran Bala, Adv. in W.P.(C) No.7532/2026, 7533/2026 &
7972/2026.
Mr. Udit Kumar, Adv. in W.P.(C) No. 7533/2026.
Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Mr. Sahin, Mr. Rajiv Khosla, Advs. in W.P.(C)
7533/2026.
Ms. Mannu Singh, Adv. in person in W.P.(C) 7533/2026.
Mr. Sunil Dwivedi, Adv. / Petitioner No. 86 in W.P.(C) 7533/2026.
Mr. Rudra Vikram Singh, Mr. Tarshith Bhardwaj, Mr. Ashirvad
Kumar Yadav, Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Varshney and Ms. Rashmi, Advs.
in W.P.(C) No.7972/2026.
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS
Mr. T. Singhdev and Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Ms. Yamini Singh, Ms.
Anum Hussain, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Mr.
Sourabh Kumar, Advs. for R-1/BCD and R-2/RO in W.P.(C)
7531/2026.
Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Ms. Tanupreet Kaur, Ms. Medha Sharma, Ms.
Pooja, Ms. Simran Kumari and Mr. Gaurav, Advs. for R-3/BCI in
W.P.(C) 7531/2026.
Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Adv. for Nina Gupta (Ballot No. 5) with candidate in
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
person in W.P.(C) No.7531/2026.
Mr. Manish Jain, Adv. for Impleader in W.P.(C) 7531/2026.
Mr. T. Singhdev and Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Ms. Yamini Singh, Ms.
Anum Hussain, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Mr.
Sourabh Kumar, Advs. for R-2/BCD and R-3/RO in W.P.(C)
7532/2026.
Mr. Sunil Dalal, Sr. Adv., Ms. Priya Hingorani, Sr. Adv. Mr.
Kirtiman Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. B.
S. Jakhar, Mr. Rajesh Mishra, Mr. Ramit Sehrawat, Ms. Garima
Bhardwaj, Mr. Vikram Singh Jakhar, Mr. Neeraj Jakhar, Ms. Bhawna
Jakhar, Mr. Viraj Rathee, Mr. Shubham Dabas, Mr. Murari Tiwari,
Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Mohit Yadav, Mr. Mahavir Sharma, Ms.
Chetna Sharma, Ms. Prerna Singh, Ms. Aastha Advs. for the
Applicants in W.P.(C) 7532/2026.
Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Adv. for Nina Gupta (Ballot No. 5) with candidate in
person in W.P.(C) 7532/2026.
Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Ms. Tanupreet Kaur, Ms. Medha Sharma, Ms.
Pooja, Ms. Simran Kumari and Mr. Gaurav, Advs. for BCI in W.P.(C)
7532/2026.
Mr. T. Singhdev and Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Ms. Yamini Singh, Ms.
Anum Hussain, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Mr.
Sourabh Kumar, Advs. for R-1/BCD, R-2/RO and R-3/EC in W.P.(C)
7533/2026.
Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Ms. Tanupreet Kaur, Ms. Medha Sharma, Ms.
Pooja, Ms. Simran Kumari and Mr. Gaurav, Advs. for R-4/BCI in
W.P.(C) 7533/2026.
Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Adv. for Nina Gupta (Ballot No. 5) with candidate in
person in W.P.(C) 7533/2026.
Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate for Impleader in W.P.(C) 7533/2026.
Mr. T. Singhdev and Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Ms. Yamini Singh, Ms.
Anum Hussain, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Mr.
Sourabh Kumar, Advs. for R-1 in W.P.(C) 7972/2026.
Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate for Impleader in W.P.(C) 7972/2026.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
1. The present batch of Petitions has been received on transfer from the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, whereby the Special Leave Petitions being
SLP(C) Nos. 17499–17501 of 2026, titled Birender Sangwan v. High
Powered Election Supervisory Committee & Ors. (“ SLPs ”) filed before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court have been transferred to this Court and re-numbered
as W.P.(C) 7531/2026, W.P.(C) 7532/2026 and W.P.(C) 7533/2026 (“ Writ
Petitions ”). W.P.(C) No. 7972/2026, Rudra Vikram Singh v. Bar Council of
Delhi & Ors. , was not part of the SLPs filed before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and was directly filed before the learned Single Judge of this Court,
who vide order dated 29.05.2026 transferred the said petition to this Bench
in view of constitution of this Bench to hear the Writ Petitions.
2. All these petitions arise out of the election of Bar Council of Delhi
(“ BCD ”) held in the precincts of this Court on 21.02.2026, 22.02.2026 and
23.02.2026, in which 221 candidates contested for 23 posts under the
preferential voting system (“ BCD Election ”). First-preference counting was
undertaken from 07.03.2026 to 09.04.2026. Elimination-based counting of
subsequent preferences began on 13.04.2026, when 45 candidates were
eliminated, followed by 28 more on 14.04.2026.
th
3. During the 80 elimination, a member of the counting staff was found
to have altered / manipulated voter preferences on certain ballot papers.
Accordingly, counting was halted, FIR No. 45/2026 (“ FIR ”) was registered
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
at P.S. Tilak Marg, and the accused was identified and produced before the
police on 15.04.2026.
4. The Petitioners contend that the BCD Election process stands vitiated
by the admitted ballot-tampering incident of 15.04.2026, along with other
alleged irregularities in the conduct of the election, counting, and non-
compliance with the Model Code of Conduct (“ MCC ”).
5. The Petitioners in the Writ Petitions then approached the High-
Powered Election Supervisory Committee (“ HPESC ”), constituted by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 18.11.2025 in M. Varadhan v.
Union of India & Ors. , W.P.(C) No. 1319/2023, seeking, inter alia , a re-
poll of the BCD Election on account of the admitted ballot-tampering
incident. By order dated 06.05.2026 (“ Impugned Order ”), the HPESC
rejected the prayer and directed that counting to recommence from the stage
immediately after completion of first-preference counting on 09.04.2026,
with the RO to make suitable arrangements and resume counting from the
elimination stage.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners approached the Hon’ble Supreme
Court by way of SLPs and vide Order dated 18.05.2026, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court transferred the SLPs to this Court and directed that further
counting of ballot papers shall remain in abeyance until final adjudication of
the matter by this Court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
7. Respondent No. 1, BCD, is a statutory body constituted under Section
3 of the Advocates Act, 1961 (“ Advocates Act ”). Under Section 6 of the
Advocates Act, one of its functions is to hold elections to its members,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 5 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
whose term is five years from publication of the election result. The
previous election for reconstitution of the BCD was held in 2018.
8. Section 8A of the Advocates Act provides that if a State Bar Council
fails to hold elections before expiry of its term or extended term, the Bar
Council of India (“ BCI ”) must constitute a Special Committee from the
following day.
9. Accordingly, by letter dated 10.10.2025, the BCI constituted a Special
Committee for the BCD under Section 8A of the Advocates Act, which
presently exercises the powers and functions of the BCD.
10. By Advisory dated 03.11.2025, the Special Committee directed
prospective candidates to remove hoardings, ballots, posters and similar
material, and cautioned them against conduct bringing disrepute to the legal
profession.
11. In M. Varadhan ( supra ), by order dated 18.11.2025, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court directed that elections to the State Bar Councils of Andhra
Pradesh, Delhi and Tripura, including counting and declaration of results, be
concluded by 28.02.2026. The relevant extract is reproduced below:
12. With a view to facilitate the effective conduction of these
“
elections. we deem it appropriate that elections to different State Bar
Councils ought to take place in a phased manner. To that end. we
issue the following directions:
xxxxx
II. In the second phase, the elections of the State Bar Councils of
Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, and Tripura shall be conducted. The entire
election programme, including counting of votes and subsequent
declaration of results shall, in any case. be concluded on or before
28.02.2026. The elections in Andhra Pradesh and Tripura will he
conducted under the direct supervision of the High-Powered
Election Committee-Phase II, comprising the following three
members:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
(i) Justice Virender Singh. former Chief Justice. Jharkhand High
Court (Chairperson);
(ii) Justice Chander Shekhar. former Judge. Delhi High Court;
and
(iii) Justice D.C. Chaudhary. former Judge. Himachal Pradesh
High Court.
We are informed that, so far as Delhi is concerned, a Special
Committee has been constituted to conduct elections to the State Bar
Council of Delhi. The three member Special Committee includes two
eminent Senior Advocates one of whom is also serving as Additional
Solicitor General of India. We see no reason to interfere in the
composition of that Committee, and it shall perform the same
function as envisaged for High Powered Election Committees in this
order. At the same time, in light of the directions passed
hereinabove. we impress upon the Special Committee that it may
seek guidance from the High-Powered Election Supervision
Committee for ensuring fair and transparent elections.
xxxxx
14. In addition to the High-Powered Election Committees
constituted above, we also deem it appropriate to constitute a three
member High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee, on a pan
India basis, which shall be headed by a former Judge of this Court
and shall also comprise one former Chief Justice of a High Court
and one renowned Senior Advocate, who does not contest election(s)
of the Bar Councils or the Bar Associations. For the same, in this
regard, we appoint the following as members of such Supervisory
Committee:
(i) Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia. former Judge. Supreme Court of India
(Chairperson);
(ii) Justice Ravi Shankar Jha. former Chief Justice. Punjab &
Haryana High Court; and
(iii) Shri V. Girl, Senior Advocate.
xxxxx
19. During the course of hearing, it is seen that several lawyers have
individual and varied grievances. We are afraid such individual grievances
cannot be addressed in these proceedings. Liberty is, hence, granted to
them to apply before the High—Powered Election Committee(s) for
redressal of their individual issue(s).
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
20. Any person who is aggrieved by the decision of the High-Powered
Election Committee shall be at liberty to approach the High—Powered
Supervisory Committee. The decision taken by the Supervisory Committee
shall be final. No civil court or High Court shall entertain any. petition(s)
against such decision.”
12. Accordingly, in M. Varadhan ( supra ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
constituted the HPESC on a pan-India basis and provided that if any person
is aggrieved by decisions of the Special Committee / High-Powered Election
Committees, he/she may approach the HPESC.
13. At its meeting on 01.12.2025, the Special Committee appointed
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Talwant Singh, former Judge of this Court, as Returning
Officer (“ RO ”) for the BCD Election, and communicated the decision by
letter dated 02.12.2025.
14. On 08.12.2025, in Yogamaya M.G. v. Union of India & Ors. ,
W.P.(C) No. 581/2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that 30% of the
seats in the State Bar Councils shall be reserved for women.
15. On 18.12.2025, the Special Committee and the RO constituted a five-
member Election Committee for the BCD Election, headed by the RO.
16. Pursuant to M. Varadhan ( supra ) and Yogamaya ( supra ), the BCD
issued Notice dated 24.12.2025 stating that the elections would be held on
20, 21 and 22 February 2026. The Notice fixed 27.12.2025 for issuance of
election notification, 10.01.2026 for publication of the provisional electoral
roll, and 17.01.2026 for publication of the final electoral roll, and set out the
election programme as under:
“Programme of the Election:
i) Total Number of seats : 25
ii) a) Number of seats for which election
is to be held
: 23
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
b) To be Co-opted : 02
iii) a) Minimum number of seats that
have to be filled from amongst the
advocates who have been on the State
Rolls for at least 10 years as on
30.11.2025
b) Minimum number of seats that
have to be filled from amongst the
Women candidates
: 12
: 5
th
: 17 January 2026
iv) Receipt of nomination papers at the
office of the Bar Council at Siri Fort.
th
to 24 January
2026 From 10:00
AM to 4:00 PM
th th
v) Date of scrutiny of nomination papers : 25 and 27
January 2026
vi) List of eligible candidates after
scrutiny (to be put on the notice board
of Council / Website)
th
: 28 January 2026
st
: 31 January 2026
vii) Last date of withdrawal of the
candidature
up to 3:00 PM
viii) List of final candidates after
withdrawal (to be put up on the notice
board of Council / Website)
st
: 31 January 2026 at
5:00 PM
th
ix) Date & Time of Polling / Election : 20 February 2026,
st
21 February 2026
nd
and 22 February
2026 From 09:00
AM to 5:00 PM
x) Place of Polling / Election : High Court of Delhi
premises, Sher Shah
Road, New Delhi –
110003
th
xi) Counting of Votes : 25 February 2026
onwards”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 9 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
17. By communication dated 27.12.2025, the BCD circulated the election
schedule, MCC and undertaking format for the BCD Election. At its meeting
on 09.01.2026, the Special Committee considered representations in Umesh
Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , W.P.(C) 158/2026 and resolved to
include in the final / supplementary electoral roll candidates provisionally
enrolled with the BCD who had qualified the All India Bar Examination and
submitted the verification form on or before 30.11.2025. It further resolved
to include candidates permitted to take the examination prior to enrolment
who had also submitted the verification form by that date, notwithstanding
that their names appeared in the deferred / withheld list, provided they had
qualified the examination.
18. By Notices dated 16.01.2026 and 17.01.2026, the BCD notified the
Additional Returning Officers appointed by the RO. By Public Notice dated
16.01.2026, it also cautioned against surrogate campaigning and MCC
violations, stating that advocates organising or facilitating such events to
circumvent the MCC would face immediate disciplinary enquiry.
19. On 16.01.2026, the Election Committee appealed to members to assist
in curbing unfair means, money and muscle power to ensure a level playing
field and free and fair elections. On 04.02.2026, the Office of the RO wrote
to the Station Commander, Air Force Station, Delhi, regarding a candidate-
linked event scheduled for that day and requested that no MCC violation be
permitted at the venue.
20. The Office of the RO also issued advisories warning voters and
candidates against MCC violations, including off-site parties, disguised
gatherings, outside interference and misuse of media, and warned of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
consequences including deletion of a candidate’s name from the ballot and
cancellation of voting rights.
21. On 11.02.2026, the BCI issued Guidelines for uniformity in scrutiny
and counting of ballot papers (“ BCI Guidelines ”), which, inter alia ,
provided as follows:
“ 9. It is further requested that a ballot may be treated as valid and
counted where the first preference is clearly indicated against one
candidate only and the marking does not create uncertainty as to the
voter’s intention; and a ballot may be treated as invalid where the
first preference is marked against more than one candidate, or
where the first preference is not clearly ascertainable, or where the
marking makes the voter’s intention uncertain, or where the ballot
bears any identifying mark or defect violating secrecy or making the
voter’s intention doubtful.
10. In order to address apprehensions relating to possible later
addition or alteration at the stage of unfolding or handling, it is
requested that unfolding and scrutiny is conducted under direct and
continuous supervision with uniform instructions at all counting
tables; that no member of the counting staff adds to, overwrites,
retraces, corrects, or otherwise alters any preference marking on
any ballot paper and confines the role strictly to scrutiny and
counting of preferences as actually cast by the voter; and that any
ballot showing overwriting, erasures, additions, physical alteration,
or suspicious features is immediately segregated as doubtful and
dealt with strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure with
brief reasons recorded.
11. It is also requested that rejected and doubtful ballots are
segregated table-wise in separate sealed bundles or packets with
brief reasons endorsed and preserved, so that uniformity,
transparency, and an objective record are maintained in the event
any grievance is raised before the competent committee(s).
12. It may be noted that such segregation and preservation of
rejected and doubtful ballots, with brief endorsed reasons, assists in
ensuring transparency and in maintaining an objective record,
should any issue be raised before the competent committee(s).
”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 11 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
22. Pursuant to the BCI Guidelines, the BCD issued voter instructions on
the method of voting and grounds of invalidity, including where first
preference was marked for more than one candidate or was otherwise
unclear or doubtful. On 12.02.2026, the Office of the RO issued a Final
Urgent Notice declaring zero tolerance for MCC violations, stating that
despite repeated advisories, show-cause notices and warnings, violations
persisted and would henceforth attract immediate disqualification without
further notice.
23. On 20.02.2026, the Election Committee, under the RO, wrote to the
SHO, P.S. Tilak Marg, seeking preventive measures against imposters/non-
advocates likely to disrupt the BCD Election from 21.02.2026 to
23.02.2026. Polling was held from 21.02.2026 to 23.02.2026 using white,
yellow and pink ballot papers respectively. The recorded votes on those
dates were 17,585, 16,300 and 23,800.
24. On 22.02.2026, the RO summarily suspended 79 candidates for MCC
violations, including sloganeering near the polling area, distribution of
campaign material and display of flex hoardings. By Notices dated
23.02.2026, the RO stated that, after considering their replies, the Election
Committee withdrew the suspension notices issued to the 79 candidates and
directed strict compliance with the MCC.
25. On 22.02.2026, the RO was pushed and manhandled by Mr. Deepak
Tyagi, Advocate. The incident was reported to the Special Committee on
24.02.2026, and by order dated 27.02.2026 the BCI Sub-Committee placed
him under interim suspension from practice and restrained him from
entering or approaching the counting venue.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
26. After polling, the sealed ballot boxes were stored in the Extension
Block of this Court. Unused stationery was placed in one empty ballot box
for return to the BCD office, videographed by the Delhi Police, and later
circulated on social media by certain candidates/representatives on
24.02.2026 and 25.02.2026. On 25.02.2026, the Election Committee and the
RO decided to lodge a complaint, and a complaint was filed the same day at
P.S. Tilak Marg against unidentified persons for allegedly spreading
malicious misinformation, criminal conspiracy and inciting public unrest.
27. By Notice dated 25.02.2026, the RO changed the counting venue and
schedule due to lack of space in the Extension Block, notifying that counting
would commence on 07.03.2026 in the lounges on the 6th and 7th Floors of
S-Block, High Court of Delhi.
28. By Resolutions dated 05.03.2026 and 08.03.2026, the Election
Committee appointed Mr. Sanjeev Jain and Mr. Virender Kumar Bansal,
former District and Sessions Judges, as Special Returning Officers (Vote
Counting). It also appointed 20 Counting Observers and 21 Additional
Returning Officers.
29. In the interregnum, Mr. Raman Gandhi submitted representations
dated 06.03.2026 and 07.03.2026 to the Special Committee alleging serious
MCC violations and other irregularities, including campaigning near this
Court during polling, mobbing, obstruction of the polling area, and
blockades at the entrance. He then approached the HPESC seeking
intervention, stoppage of counting and countermanding of the election,
including on the ground that restoration of the candidature of certain
previously suspended candidates was arbitrary and conferred an undue
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 13 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
advantage. As no action was taken, he filed W.P.(C) No. 337/2026, Raman
Gandhi v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors. , before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
which was withdrawn on 23.03.2026 with liberty to avail remedies before
the prescribed authority.
th
30. Counting commenced on 07.03.2026 on 7 Floor of S-Block, High
Court of Delhi. The ballot boxes were stored on the Ground Floor of S-
Block under CCTV surveillance and para-military and security cover and
th
were later shifted to the 7 Floor in the presence of the candidates. There
th th
were 5 cameras on the 6 Floor and 23 cameras on the 7 Floor. The entire
counting process was video-graphed and live-streamed on YouTube, and
live camera feeds were also made available through the High Loop App.
31. The ballot papers were unfolded and placed on the podium in a
manner visible to the candidates and their representatives through CCTV
th
and the High Loop App. Large display screens were also installed on the 6
Floor, where the candidates and their representatives were seated.
32. Each ballot box was brought to the counting podium under continuous
camera surveillance and opened in the presence of the Election Committee,
the Special Returning Officers, and the candidates and their representatives
virtually. The ballot papers were scrutinised by the Election Committee and
the Special Returning Officers, and the votes were announced during
counting. For the counting process, 8 senior officials of the High Court of
Delhi were deputed to oversee the exercise, in addition to the following staff
arranged by the BCD:
i. Delhi State Election Commission-3
ii. Team organised through Mr. Prabodh Kumar-60
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 14 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
iii. Retired staff from the Institute of Chartered Accountants-20
iv. Group L (Outsourced manpower agency)-60
v. Delhi Police and Para-military-60
vi. Bar Council of Delhi-30 (on administrative duties)
vii. NGO-Arya Bal Grah-20
viii. Technical Team (CCTV and cameras)-10
ix. Catering Staff-7
x. Housekeeping Staff-5
xi. Waiter-5
Total-277
33. The First-preference votes were counted between 07.03.2026 and
09.04.2026. After recording, the ballot papers were kept in open baskets
allotted to each candidate, with one counting staff member assigned to two
candidates. As some candidates sought reconciliation of votes, by order
dated 20.03.2026, the RO stated that reconciliation would be undertaken
after completion of counting. In W.P.(C) 4316/2026, Anushkaa Arora &
Ors. v. BCD & Ors. , filed challenging the order dated 20.03.2026 passed by
the RO this Court, by order dated 02.04.2026, directed that the BCD election
result be declared only after reconciliation.
34. Ms. Anushkaa Arora later sought immediate reconciliation before
elimination, citing discrepancies in the Day 1 and Day 2 tallies and seeking
reconciliation of records, voter lists, counterfoils and ballot papers. By order
dated 07.04.2026, the RO rejected the request, holding that reconciliation
would be carried out only after completion of counting and before
declaration of the result. That order was challenged in W.P.(C) 4907/2026.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 15 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
By order dated 13.04.2026, this Court recorded that the result would not be
declared before reconciliation and that candidates or their authorised
representatives would be allowed to remain present when reconciliation was
undertaken. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
35. After completion of first-preference counting, a report was submitted
to the Chairman of the Special Committee, and elimination and counting of
subsequent preferences commenced on 13.04.2026. On 15.04.2026, during
th
the 80 elimination of Mr. Syed Mohd. Arif (Ballot No. 17), Mr. Pawan
Narang, Senior Advocate and Member of the Election Committee, noticed
that several ballot papers bore altered next-preference markings in favour of
a particular candidate. Finding the same pattern on multiple ballots, the RO
and Election Committee halted counting. The same day, the Election
Committee decided that the 18 affected ballots be recalled and the votes
transferred to the candidate against whose name the original next preference
“2” appeared to have been marked, it having been made to resemble “12” by
prefixing “1”. The ballots were photographed and flagged for future
reference. The RO then re-announced the votes on those ballots and
transferred them accordingly. Counting then continued until about 1:00 p.m.,
during which three more candidates were eliminated, after which the staff
broke for lunch.
36. During the lunch interval, the Election Committee reviewed the
camera recordings, identified one member of the counting staff as the
suspected person handling the ballots of Mr. Syed Mohd. Arif, and located
him within the building. He was identified as Mr. Nikhil Kumar.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 16 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
37. On inquiry, it was found that Mr. Nikhil Kumar had joined the
counting process on 02.04.2026 through Mr. Prabodh Kumar and admitted
that candidate Mr. Vishnu Sharma (Ballot No. 132) was his maternal uncle.
A formal complaint was then sent to P.S. Tilak Marg, and the police took
him for investigation. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged, and no further
counting took place that day.
38. On 16.04.2026, before counting recommenced, the candidates and
their authorised representatives sought reconciliation of the counting
th
undertaken on 15.04.2026. A comprehensive reconciliation up to the 80
elimination of Mr. Syed Mohd. Arif was, accordingly, carried out. Later that
th
day, at about 12:15 p.m., when the 87 elimination was about to begin,
candidate Mr. Prakash Chandra Dwivedi, along with Ms. Sangita Malhotra,
Mr. Vaibhav Jain, Ms. Arti Tyagi, three representatives of Ms. Anushkaa
th
Arora, and some unidentified persons, entered the counting area on the 7
Floor, S-Block, High Court of Delhi, raised slogans and used defamatory
language against the RO and counting officers. Counting did not resume
thereafter on 16.04.2026.
39. The Chairman and Members of the Special Committee, the RO, and
the Special Returning Officers then reached the counting area and decided
that counting would not continue until further orders.
40. On 16.04.2026, 116 contesting candidates jointly sought re-polling
from the Secretary, BCD. Candidates were directed to submit any grievance
in writing to the Secretary, BCD, by the evening of 18.04.2026. At its
meeting on 18.04.2026, the Election Committee resolved to report the
incident to the Special Committee for prompt action against the four
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 17 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
candidates involved and for identifying others who had supported them. It
further recommended immediate suspension of those candidates, stating that
counting could not continue under apprehension of physical threats. The
Election Committee also resolved that eliminated candidates and their
th
representatives would no longer be allowed on the 6 Floor, S-Block, and
that, where counting of votes cast in favour of the four candidates proposed
for suspension remained pending, one representative of each would be
permitted on that floor. It further decided that fresh identity cards, signed by
the Secretary, BCD, would be issued to all counting staff after personal
interviews and undertakings confirming that they had no proximity to any
candidate, and that entry to the Counting Hall would be permitted only on
the basis of those new identity cards. On 20.04.2026, communications were
sent to the learned Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, and the
th
Commissioner of Police, Delhi, seeking stricter access control to the 7
Floor, S-Block, and deployment of adequate security and paramilitary
personnel for the safety of the counting officers and staff.
41. At its meeting on 20.04.2026, the Special Committee considered the
Secretary’s report of 15.04.2026 and the Election Committee’s resolutions
of 18.04.2026 and decided to issue a show-cause notice to candidate Mr.
Vishnu Sharma, having regard to Mr. Nikhil Kumar’s admission that Mr.
Vishnu Sharma was his maternal uncle. At the same meeting, the Special
Committee also recorded its concern over the events of 16.04.2026 and the
threatening behaviour directed at the Election Committee, which was
conducting the counting process pro bono under the mandate of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 18 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
42. Acting on the Election Committee’s report and recommendations, the
Special Committee suspended four candidates from the BCD election
process, while permitting their representatives to participate in the remaining
counting so long as those candidates remained in the fray, subject to
behavioural and disciplinary norms.
43. The request dated 16.04.2026 made by 116 contesting candidates
seeking the re-polling was declined by communication dated 20.04.2026 by
the Secretary, BCD observing that the election process was conducted
pursuant to specific directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 18.11.2025 in M. Varadhan ( supra ) and is exceptional in nature, that
once the election process has commenced, it should not be interrupted and
must be carried through to its logical conclusion and that if any person is
aggrieved by the results it is always open to him to file an election petition.
44. On 21.04.2026, show-cause notices were issued to four candidates
regarding suspension of their licences to practise and disciplinary
proceedings under Section 35(1) of the Advocates Act. A separate show-
cause notice of the same date was also issued to Mr. Vishnu Sharma.
45. By communication dated 23.04.2026 circulated on the candidates’
WhatsApp group, the candidates were informed that the Investigating
Officer (“ IO ”) had visited on 22.04.2026 and would visit the counting
premises again on 23.04.2026 so that the original Digital Video Recorder
(“ DVR ”) of the CCTV cameras could be seized and replaced to avoid
automatic overwriting of the recordings, and that the process would be
videographed and live-streamed on YouTube. Accordingly, the DVR was
handed over to the IO on 23.04.2026.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 19 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
46. On 24.04.2026, certain candidates and their representatives /
supporters assembled outside Gate No. 5 of the High Court of Delhi and
raised banners and slogans against the RO and the Election Committee.
47. By notice dated 24.04.2026, the BCD informed that counting would
resume from 25.04.2026. It was ultimately decided that candidates and their
th
representatives would continue to view the counting from the 6 Floor, S-
Block, while eliminated candidates and their representatives, as well as the
four suspended candidates, would not be permitted entry there, though the
representatives of the suspended candidates were allowed.
48. On 25.04.2026, when counting was to resume, certain candidates and
their representatives/supporters obstructed the counting staff and members
th
of the Election Committee from reaching the 7 Floor, S-Block, and blocked
the main gate. Apprehending harm, the counting staff left the premises.
49. On 25.04.2026, the Special Committee issued show-cause notices to
the candidates/advocates, their representatives and supporters involved in
the incident of that date, calling upon them to explain why action for gross
professional misconduct under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, including
suspension of licences to practise for three years, should not be taken.
50. By way of letter dated 25.04.2026, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Talwant Singh
(Retd.) resigned from the position of the RO citing vilification campaigns
and false aspersions. The Special Committee requested him on 28.04.2026
to withdraw it, but he reiterated on 30.04.2026 that he could not continue
and that his resignation would take effect from 01.05.2026. Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma (Retd.), former Judge of this Court was appointed
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 20 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
RO on 02.05.2026, but he resigned by letter dated 05.05.2026 citing
personal and professional commitments.
51. The Special Committee then appointed Mr. Rakesh Munjal, Senior
Advocate, to assume the office of RO on 06.05.2026 and Ms. Justice Sangita
Dhingra Sehgal (Retd.), former Judge of this Court was appointed Observer,
whereupon the Election Committee stood reconstituted.
52. By notification dated 27.04.2026, the BCD restrained ten advocates
from entering the precincts of the High Court of Delhi until declaration of
the BCD election result, on allegations of obstructing the movement of a
member of the Election Committee and the Secretary, BCD, making false
allegations, issuing threats, and misbehaving with the RO.
53. The 116 candidates who had made request for re-polling, approached
the HPESC by way of Appeal Nos. 79/2026, 94/2026 and 95/2026, seeking,
inter alia , stoppage of counting, recall of the election process and a re-poll
on the ground of ballot tampering and other alleged irregularities, including
counting discrepancies, lack of transparency and MCC violations. On
29.04.2026, the HPESC heard the stakeholders and reserved orders.
54. By the Impugned Order, the HPESC directed that counting
recommence from the stage immediately after completion of first-preference
counting on 09.04.2026, and that the RO make suitable arrangements and
recommence counting afresh from the elimination stage. Pursuant to the
Impugned Order, the counting resumed on 13.05.2026.
55. Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Petitioners filed SLPs. By
order dated 18.05.2026, the Hon’ble Supreme Court transferred the SLPs to
this Court while observing that:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 21 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
“ SLP(C) Nos.17499-17501/2026, SLP(C) No(s).17604/2026 and
SLP(C) No.17460/2026
1. The hearing in SLP(C) No.17460/2026, shown to be listed on
19.05.2026, is preponed on the oral prayer made by Mr. Raman
Gandhi, the petitioner-in-person. The same is being heard along
with Item Nos. 25 and 54.
2. All these matters have arisen out of the recently conducted
elections of the Bar Council of Delhi. Several representations were
filed alleging various irregularities in the conduct of the elections
and the counting of votes. However, the prayer for re-polling having
been declined by the High-Powered Election Supervisory
Committee, constituted by this Court vide order dated 06.05.2026,
the petitioners have approached this Court.
3. Some of the contesting respondents are also on caveat.
4. We have heard Ms. Shobha Gupta, learned counsel and Mr.
Sushil Kumar Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner(s).
5. During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the
parties have fairly agreed to our suggestion that since the effective
adjudication of the controversy might require summoning of original
records, including ballot papers, etc., it would be appropriate if the
matter is entrusted to a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
6. Consequently, we transfer these petitions to the Delhi High
Court with a request to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court
to list these matters before a Special Bench this week itself. The
Division Bench, to whom the matter will be entrusted, is requested
to take up the matter on a day-to-day basis and, accordingly,
dispose of the same at the earliest.
7. We have no reason to doubt that learned counsel/Senior
Counsel for the parties will extend full cooperation to the Division
Bench of the High Court.
8. Till the High Court decides the matter finally, further
counting of ballot papers shall be kept in abeyance.
9. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
10. The parties shall be at liberty to raise all the contentions
before the High Court.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 22 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
11. The Special Leave Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, also stand closed.
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).1319/2023
We may also add here that a confidential letter dated
02.05.2026 has been received from Justice Talwant Singh, a former
Judge of the Delhi High Court. We have perused the contents of the
same. Without divulging the contents of the letter at this stage, we
direct the Registry to re-seal the same and send it to Hon’ble the
Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court for necessary action.”
56. Some of the candidates of the BCD Election preferred a
Miscellaneous Application before the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking
modification of the order dated 18.05.2026 passed in Birender Sangwan
( supra ), transferring the SLPs to this Court to the limited extent that the
counting process of the BCD Elections may not be kept in abeyance and
may be directed to continue. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Order dated
21.05.2026 gave liberty to the said applicants to raise their respective
contentions and seek appropriate interim directions before this Special
Bench. The relevant extract of the said Order dated 21.05.2026 is
reproduced below:
“ 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel/counsel for the parties.
3. Owing to the urgent nature of the matter, in continuation of order
dated 18.05.2026, Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court is
requested to list the matters before a Division Bench, preferably on
Monday, i.e., 25.05.2026.
4. The parties shall be at liberty to raise their respective contentions
and seek appropriate interim directions, which may be considered
by the High Court on Monday, i.e., 25.05.2026.
5. The M.A., along with all interlocutory applications stands,
accordingly, disposed of. ”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 23 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
57. Pursuant to the orders dated 18.05.2026 and 21.05.2026 passed in
Birender Sangwan ( supra ), this Special Bench was constituted, and the
matters were listed on 25.05.2026.
58. Accordingly, the SLPs along with Miscellaneous Application bearing
Diary No. 31625/2026 were renumbered and listed as the Writ Petitions and
CMA No. 38198/2026 (“ CMA ”) before this Court.
59. At the hearing of 25.05.2026, as the lawyers were abstaining from
work, the matters were directed to be re-notified on 26.05.2026. On
26.05.2026, the Parties were directed to complete the pleadings, and the
matters were listed on 29.05.2026 on account of holidays on 27.05.2026 and
28.05.2026. On 29.05.2026, the Parties were heard on the aspect of
maintainability of the Writ Petitions and the further proceedings were
scheduled on 30.05.2026.
60. On 30.05.2026, W.P.(C) No.7972/2026 was listed pursuant to order
dated 29.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge. On 30.05.2026,
31.05.2026 and 01.06.2026, Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Nina Gupta, Ms. Shobha
Gupta, Ms. Anushkaa Arora, Mr. Raman Gandhi, Mr. Prabhat Jain, Mr.
Rajiv Khosla, Advocates, some of whom have appeared in-person for the
Petitioners' side, Mr. T. Singhdev for BCD and Mr. Sunil Dalal, Ms. Priya
Hingorani, Mr. Kirtiman Singh and Mr. Gautam Narayan, Senior Advocates
for the Applicants in CMA were heard at length.
61. We have also watched the videos produced by the Parties during the
course of the hearings conducted in open Court.
62. Vide order dated 31.05.2026, the IO was directed to appear in person
on 01.06.2026 along with the DVR. On 01.06.2026, Mr. Santosh, Sub
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 24 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
Inspector, IO for the FIR appeared in person along with the DVR in sealed
condition and apprised the Court that the DVR contained recordings from
17.03.2026 to 23.04.2026. Accordingly, it was directed that an appropriate
order with regard to DVR shall be passed after consulting the Technical
Team of High Court of Delhi. After the hearing, Mr. Kapil Kumar, Senior
System Analyst, High Court of Delhi was requested to examine the DVR in
sealed condition produced by the IO to assist the Bench to locating the exact
portions of the recordings where the alleged interpolation, if any, is stated to
have occurred. After discussing the matter with the IO, Mr. Kapil Kumar,
Senior System Analyst, High Court of Delhi informed the Bench in
Chamber that there were 21 cameras in the room where counting of voting
was taking place and each camera had a separate recording. Having
considered the entire matter, it was found appropriate to return the sealed
DVR to the IO as it was not practical to view all the recordings. Further,
since the DVR was the case property, it was also not found appropriate to
copy the data from the same.
63. As the hearing on interim relief for recommencement of the counting
process would have required the same time as the hearing on the merits, the
matters were finally heard on a day-to-day basis, and Judgment was reserved
on 01.06.2026.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
64. The following submissions were made on behalf of the Petitioners:
64.1. As regards the maintainability of the present Writ Petitions, it
was submitted that, by order dated 18.05.2026 passed in the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 25 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
SLPs, the Hon’ble Supreme Court transferred the matters to
this Court for adjudication on merits, including, if necessary,
upon summoning the original records. The Petitioners
contended that the limited question before this Court is whether
the facts and circumstances of the case warrant a direction for
re-polling and, therefore, no objection to maintainability can
now be sustained, particularly when the Hon’ble Supreme
Court entertained the SLPs despite the pendency of the
electoral process, reserved liberty to all parties to raise their
contentions before this Court, and directed that further counting
remain stayed pending adjudication.
64.2. It was further submitted that the rule against judicial
interference in an ongoing election is not absolute and admits of
exception in cases involving grave irregularities affecting the
integrity of the electoral process. In that context, reliance was
placed on the distinction between the present case and
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. , (1978) 1 SCC 405
and N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal
Constituency & Ors. (1952) l SCC 94, neither of which, it was
urged, concerned admitted and prima facie criminal
manipulation of ballot papers during counting, registration of
an FIR, and an ongoing investigation.
64.3. Reference was also made to the order dated 18.05.2026 passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Savita Devi @Savita Dhanda
& Ors. v Union Of India & Ors. , W.P. (C) 589/2026 to submit
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 26 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
that, even while being aware of the constitution of additional
Election Tribunals and of Paragraph No. 20 of M. Varadhan
( supra ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court nonetheless transferred the
present matters to this Court. According to the Petitioners, the
present case stands on a distinct footing by reason of the
seriousness of the allegations, which are stated to strike at the
root of the electoral process.
64.4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was fully conscious of the gravity
of the issues arising in the present Writ Petitions, including the
alleged irregularities in the conduct of the Elections and the
counting of votes and, therefore, considered it appropriate, in
the interest of justice, to transfer the SLPs to this Court,
particularly as effective adjudication of the alleged conspiracy
might require summoning of original records, including ballot
papers. The Hon’ble Supreme Court requested expeditious day-
to-day hearing and early disposal, and that, having transferred
the matters for adjudication by this Court, it must be taken to
have upheld the maintainability of the present proceedings as
transferred cases.
64.5. On merits, it was submitted that the Impugned Order proceeds
on an erroneous assumption that the ballot-tampering incident
was isolated. The Petitioners contended that, once criminal
tampering of ballot papers stood admitted and an FIR had been
registered, the fairness of the electoral process stood seriously
compromised. It was urged that the finding that the first round
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 27 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
of counting remained unaffected is unsupported by
investigation, ignores the continuous presence of the accused in
the counting process, and proceeds merely on the stage at
which the fraud was detected rather than when it may have
occurred.
64.6. It was further urged that the re-verification exercise cannot be
regarded as conclusive, as it was not conducted by an
independent authority, the methodology and safeguards were
not disclosed, candidates were excluded from meaningful
participation, and the exercise was confined to selected tables
notwithstanding allegations of a wider conspiracy. The
subsequent live display of counting could not cure defects
arising from prior tampering.
64.7. The Petitioners also submitted that the Impugned Order failed
to deal with several objections raised on behalf of 116
candidates, including discrepancies in vote counts, MCC
violations, irregular polling practices, unauthorised canvassing,
misuse of mobile phones, and procedural lapses in counting.
Such non-consideration, according to the Petitioners, amounts
to non-application of mind and denial of reasoned adjudication.
64.8. It was further contended that the investigation was incomplete,
that the FIR itself contemplated the involvement of unidentified
persons, and that the full extent of the conspiracy and ballot
manipulation had not been ascertained when the Impugned
Order was passed. In such circumstances, any conclusion that
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 28 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
the fraud was a lone act with no impact on the wider electoral
outcome was premature and unsupported by an adequate
evidentiary foundation.
64.9. There were discrepancies in the first-preference tally,
unauthorised access to the ballot room and strong room, non-
functional CCTV coverage, inadequate livestreaming, presence
of unauthorised persons within the polling environment, and the
alleged absence of institutional separation between
administrative and adjudicatory functions of the Special
Committee and Election Committee. These factors
cumulatively undermine the credibility, transparency and
fairness of the electoral process.
64.10.There were widespread and unaddressed violations of the
MCC, summary rejection of objections during counting,
deficient voter verification, absence of an undertaking from Mr.
Nikhil Kumar despite his proximity to a contesting candidate,
unexplained movement of empty ballot boxes, insecure
handling of ballot papers, poor visual display during scrutiny,
and multiple procedural irregularities in polling and counting. It
was submitted that the cumulative effect of these deficiencies,
read with the admitted ballot tampering and the pending
criminal investigation, evidences a systemic breakdown of
safeguards.
64.11.Reliance was also placed on video material shown during the
hearing to contend that several ballot papers were wrongly
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 29 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
treated as valid, that manipulation and interpolation were
visible in both first-preference and elimination rounds, and that,
in many instances, the camera angle did not permit verification
of the basis on which preferences were transferred. Once the
foundational integrity of the ballot stood compromised,
continuation of counting would be futile, and a re-poll remained
the only efficacious remedy.
64.12.The Petitioners further submitted that the Impugned Order
proceeds on an erroneous premise that the ballot-tampering
incident was isolated, notwithstanding the admitted
manipulation of voter preferences and the registration of an
FIR. Once criminal tampering of ballot papers stood admitted,
the fairness and integrity of the electoral process stood
seriously compromised, and any conclusion that the incident
had no wider impact was premature in the absence of a
completed investigation the Impugned Order is internally
inconsistent inasmuch as, while recording the existence of
ballot tampering and criminal proceedings, it nevertheless
permits continuation of the election process and declines the
prayer for a re-poll. The Petitioners contended that recognition
of fraud could not be reconciled with validation of the electoral
outcome without independent and conclusive scrutiny.
64.13.The Petitioners submitted that the investigation remained
incomplete, that the FIR itself contemplated the involvement of
unidentified persons, and that the full extent of the alleged
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 30 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
conspiracy and ballot manipulation had not been ascertained as
on the date of the Impugned Order. On that basis, it was
contended that any finding limiting the impact of the fraud
lacked an adequate evidentiary foundation.
64.14.The observation in the Impugned Order that the first round of
counting remained unaffected is unsupported by investigation,
overlooks the continuous presence of the accused in the
counting process, and proceeds merely on the stage at which
the fraud was detected rather than the stage at which it may
have occurred.
64.15.The re-checking exercise was also assailed as inconclusive, it
being the Petitioners’ case that the exercise was not conducted
by an independent authority, that no clear methodology or
safeguards were disclosed, that candidates were excluded from
meaningful participation, and that the exercise was confined to
selected tables despite allegations of a wider conspiracy. The
Petitioners submitted that subsequent live display of counting
could not cure defects arising from prior tampering. Enhanced
transparency in subsequent stage cannot restore the integrity of
ballot papers allegedly compromised in an earlier and
completed stage of counting.
64.16.The Impugned Order failed to address several objections raised
on behalf of 116 candidates, including discrepancies in vote
counts, violations of the MCC, irregular polling practices,
unauthorised canvassing, misuse of mobile phones, and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 31 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
procedural lapses in counting, which reflected non-application
of mind and denial of reasoned adjudication.
64.17.The cumulative effect of the alleged irregularities, including
discrepancies in the first-preference tally, unauthorised access
to the ballot and strong rooms, deficient CCTV coverage and
livestreaming, presence of unauthorised persons in the polling
environment, inadequate verification of voters and candidates,
widespread MCC violations, insecure handling of ballot papers,
unexplained movement of empty ballot boxes, and summary
rejection of objections along with the admitted tampering and
the pending criminal investigation, evidenced a systemic failure
of safeguards.
64.18.Mr. Nikhil Kumar, who was stated to be involved in the
incident, had access to the counting process over a substantial
period and was released on the date of registration of the FIR
without custodial interrogation. Confidence in the integrity of
the ballot papers could not be restored unless the investigation
conclusively established the full extent of the alleged
manipulation. Once the ballot papers themselves had become
the subject-matter of a criminal inquiry, the election outcome
could not attain finality unless the investigation conclusively
restored confidence in their integrity.
64.19.The HPESC could not have ruled out the possibility of
involvement of unidentified co-conspirators operating at other
stages or locations within the counting process. Any finding as
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 32 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
regards the limited impact of the fraud lacked an adequate
evidentiary foundation.
64.20. The excess and deficit figures recorded at the close of first-
preference counting disclosed a net unexplained variance of
1,469 votes, which, according to the Petitioners, remained
insufficiently explained and further undermined confidence in
the process. Reliance was placed on the following judgments of
the Supreme Court:
(i) L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India , (1997) 3 SCC 261 in
which the question whether the power of judicial review vested
in the High Courts and in the Hon’ble Supreme Court under
Articles 226 / 227 and Article 32 of the Constitution is part of
the basic structure of the Constitution is considered. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar ( supra )
observed as under:
“ 79. We also hold that the power vested in the High
Courts to exercise judicial superintendence over the
decisions of all courts and tribunals within their
respective jurisdictions is also part of the basic
structure of the Constitution. This is because a situation
where the High Courts are divested of all other judicial
functions apart from that of constitutional
interpretation, is equally to be avoided.
xxxxx
91. It has also been contended before us that even in
dealing with cases which are properly before the
Tribunals, the manner in which justice is dispensed by
them leaves much to be desired. Moreover, the remedy
provided in the parent statutes, by way of an appeal by
special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution, is
too costly and inaccessible for it to be real and effective.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 33 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
Furthermore, the result of providing such a remedy is
that the docket of the Supreme Court is crowded with
decisions of Tribunals that are challenged on relatively
trivial grounds and it is forced to perform the role of a
first appellate court. We have already emphasised the
necessity for ensuring that the High Courts are able to
exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of
the Tribunals under Article 227 of the Constitution.
In R.K. Jain case [(1993) 4 SCC 119 : 1993 SCC (L&S)
1128 : (1993) 25 ATC 464] , after taking note of these
facts, it was suggested that the possibility of an appeal
from the Tribunal on questions of law to a Division
Bench of a High Court within whose territorial
jurisdiction the Tribunal falls, be pursued. It appears
that no follow-up action has been taken pursuant to the
suggestion. Such a measure would have improved
matters considerably. Having regard to both the
aforestated contentions, we hold that all decisions of
Tribunals, whether created pursuant to Article 323-A or
Article 323-B of the Constitution, will be subject to the
High Court's writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution, before a Division Bench of the High
Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the particular
Tribunal falls.
xxxxx
92. We may add here that under the existing system,
direct appeals have been provided from the decisions of
all Tribunals to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of
the Constitution. In view of our above-mentioned
observations, this situation will also stand modified. In
the view that we have taken, no appeal from the decision
of a Tribunal will directly lie before the Supreme Court
under Article 136 of the Constitution; but instead, the
aggrieved party will be entitled to move the High Court
under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution and from the
decision of the Division Bench of the High Court the
aggrieved party could move this Court under Article
136 of the Constitution. ”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 34 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
(ii) Manoj Narula v. Union of India , (2014) 9 SCC 1 considered
the challenge to the appointment of some of the respondents
therein as Ministers to the Council of Ministers of Union of
India despite their involvement in serious and heinous crimes. It
was observed that it is not for the Court to issue any direction to
the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister, as the case may be, as
to the manner in which they should exercise their power while
selecting the colleagues in the Council of Ministers, but the
Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of the State, who
themselves have taken oath to bear true faith and allegiance to
the Constitution of India and to discharge their duties faithfully
and conscientiously, will be well advised to consider avoiding
any person in the Council of Ministers, against whom charges
have been framed by a criminal court in respect of offences
involving moral turpitude and also offences specifically
referred to in Chapter III of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951.
(iii) Mohinder Singh Gill ( supra ), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, inter alia , while dealing with a question whether Article
329(b) of the Constitution of India is a blanket ban on all
manner of questions which may have impact on the ultimate
result of the election, observed that:
“ 10. Before we proceed further, we had better have a
full glimpse of the constitutional scheme of elections in
our system and the legislative follow-up regulating the
process of election. Shri Justice Mathew in Indira Nehru
Gandhi [Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 35 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
SCC 1, 120 : (1976) 2 SCR 347, 504-505] summarised,
skeletal fashion, this scheme following the pattern
adopted by Fazl Ali, J. in Ponnuswami [N.P.
Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, (1952) 1 SCC 94 :
(1952) SCR 218 : AIR 1952 SC 64 : 1 ELR 133]. He
explained : (SCC p. 120, paras 268 & 269)
“The concept of democracy as visualized by the
Constitution presupposes the representation of
the people in Parliament and State Legislatures
by the method of election. And, before an election
machinery can be brought into operation, there
are three requisites which require to be attended
to, namely, (1) there should be a set of laws and
rules making provisions with respect to all
matters relating to, or in connection with,
elections, and it should be decided as to how
these laws and rules are to be made; (2) there
should be an executive charged with the duty of
securing the due conduct of elections; and (3)
there should be a judicial tribunal to deal with
disputes arising out of or in connection with
elections. Articles 327 and 328 deal with the first
of these requisites. Article 324 with the second
and Article 329 with the third requisite (see N.P.
Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal
Constituency).
Article 329(b) envisages the challenge to an
election by a petition to be presented to such
authority as the Parliament may, by law,
prescribe. A law relating to election should
contain the requisite qualifications for
candidates, the method of voting, definition of
corrupt practices by the candidates and their
election agents, the forum for adjudication of
election disputes and other cognate matters. It is
on the basis of this law that the question whether
there has been a valid election has to be
determined by the authority to which the petition
is presented. And, when a dispute is raised as
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 36 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
regards the validity of the election of a particular
candidate, the authority entrusted with the task of
resolving the dispute must necessarily exercise a
judicial function, for, the process consists of
ascertaining the facts relating to the election and
applying the law to the facts so ascertained. ”
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF BCD:
65. The following submissions were made on behalf of BCD:
65.1. It was submitted that, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
N.P. Ponnuswami ( supra ), the expression “election” in Part
XV of the Constitution, and in particular Article 329(b) of the
Constitution, must be construed broadly so as to comprehend
the entire process from the notification of the election to the
declaration of the returned candidate. Article 329(b) of the
Constitution bars judicial interference, including in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, in matters
arising during the pendency of the electoral process. The
allegations in the Writ Petition are factual in nature and would
require evidentiary adjudication, and must, therefore, await
consideration in appropriate election proceedings after
conclusion of the election.
65.2. The Petitioners, having invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction
of this Court during the pendency of the electoral process, have
approached this Court at a stage expressly interdicted by the
Constitution. Any grievance touching upon the conduct of the
election including the subject matter of the present Petitions
cannot be entertained by this Court at this stage and must await
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 37 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
its proper ventilation exclusively through the statutory
mechanism of an election petition once the said elections have
concluded. In support of this submission reliance was placed on
the following judgments:
(i) N.P. Ponnuswami ( supra );
(ii) Mohinder Singh Gill ( supra );
(iii) Shahji K. Joseph v. V. Vishwanath & Ors., (2016) 4 SCC
429;
(iv) Vishyanath Agarwal v. Election Commission of India ,
2025 SCC OnLine Del 349
(v) Judgment dated 06.11.2024 passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Mandeep Singh & Anr. v. Collector &
Ors. SLP (C) No. 26170/20243
(vi) Abhay Kumar Verma v. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors.
2004 (78) DRl 1
65.3. In M. Varadhan ( supra ), the Hon’ble Supreme Court devised a
specific grievance-redressal framework for State Bar Council
elections, under which any person aggrieved by a decision of
the Special Committee was required to approach the HPESC in
the first instance. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further directed
that the decision of the HPESC would be final and that no civil
court or High Court would entertain a challenge thereto. In
support of this submission, reliance was placed on the following
orders passed by this Court:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 38 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
i. Order dated 03.12.2025 in Surendar Kumar v. Bar
Council of Delhi & Anr. - W.P.(C) 13355/2025;
ii. Order dated 07.01.2026 in Umesh Kumar & Ors. v. Union
of indie & Ors. - W.P.(C) 158/2026;
iii. Order dated 27.03.2026 in Ramesh Chandra Singh v. Bar
Council of Delhi & Anr. -LPA No. 161/2026.
65.4. The right to vote, the right to contest an election, and the right
to challenge an election are not fundamental or common-law
rights, but rights of a purely statutory character, governed
entirely by the enactment and rules under which the election is
held. In that regard, reliance was placed on Jyoti Basu v. Debi
Ghosal , (1982) 1 SCC 691 and Javed v. State of Haryana ,
(2003) 8 SCC 369 to contend that, election rights being
creatures of statute, the conditions, limitations and remedies
governing them must be found within the statutory framework
itself, and a court cannot travel beyond that framework on
considerations of common law or equity. In support of this
submission, reliance was further placed on the following
decisions:
i. K. Krishna Murthy (Dr.) & Ors. v. Union of India &
Anr. - (2010) 7 SCC 202;
ii. Vishwanath Pratap Singh v. Election Commission of
India & Anr. SLP (C) No. 13013 of 2022 Judgment
dated 09.09.2022; and
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 39 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
iii. Supreme Court Bar Association & Ors. v. B.D Kaushik
— (2011) 13 SCC 774
65.5. The BCD Election are governed by the Advocates Act, the Bar
Council of India Rules, 1975, and the Bar Council of Delhi
Rules, 1963 (“ BCD Rules ”). Rules 34 and 86 of the BCD Rules
provide for adjudication of election disputes by an Election
Tribunal. Reliance was also placed on the order dated
18.05.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Savita
Devi ( supra ), whereby two dedicated Election Tribunals were
constituted to expeditiously decide disputes arising out of the
ongoing elections, including applications for interim relief.
Therefore, the Petitioners have an efficacious alternative
remedy before the said Tribunals.
65.6. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in Abhay
Kumar Verma ( supra ), to submit that a writ petition
challenging an election at an intermediate stage is not
maintainable and that the election process must be permitted to
run its course, leaving the aggrieved party to pursue an election
petition after declaration of the result.
65.7. The Petitioners, having themselves participated in the election
process and having allegedly committed repeated violations of
the Bar Council of India Rules, the BCD Rules and the MCC,
cannot seek discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Petitioners acted in breach of the undertakings
furnished with their nomination papers and have, by reason of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 40 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
their own conduct, disentitled themselves from invoking the
equitable jurisdiction of this Court.
65.8. Even prior to formal notification of the MCC, the Special
Committee had taken action against unauthorised campaigning
and allied violations by issuing 29 show-cause notices to
prospective candidates, including in relation to unauthorised use
of the BCD logo, hoardings, banners and posters causing public
inconvenience or defacement. Only after personal hearings held
on 12.12.2025 and upon receipt of undertakings to maintain
electoral and professional decorum, the Disciplinary Committee
of the BCD dropped the said proceedings.
65.9. Following constitution of the Election Committee and formal
notification of the MCC on 27.12.2025, the Election Committee
issued 71 show-cause notices for various alleged MCC
violations, including unauthorised campaigning, financial
inducements, social-media campaigning, professional
misconduct and related infractions.
65.10.The RO and the Election Committee continuously monitored
compliance with the MCC and issued show-cause notices,
advisories and communications to law-enforcement and other
authorities to prevent violations and ensure orderly conduct of
the election.
65.11.During polling on 21.02.2026, 22.02.2026 and 23.02.2026, the
Election Committee, the RO, the Additional Returning Officers,
members of the Special Committee, police officials and other
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 41 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
civil authorities continuously monitored the precincts of this
Court and adjoining areas to prevent MCC violations. The
issuance of voter slips, and ballot papers was handled by court
and other authorised staff, and that advocates or volunteers
present within the polling area were confined to guiding voters,
thereby ensuring a fair and transparent polling process.
65.12.On 22.02.2026, the RO and the Election Committee issued 79
show-cause notices and placed the concerned candidates under
summary suspension for alleged MCC violations. Upon receipt
of their replies on 23.02.2026, the suspension was revoked in
the interest of preserving democratic participation, with a
direction for strict future compliance. Accordingly, it was urged
that the temporary suspension did not affect the validity of
polling and that the contention that such candidates thereby
became ineligible to continue in the election is misconceived.
65.13.On 22.02.2026 Mr. Deepak Tyagi, Advocate, pushed and
manhandled the Returning Officer. Upon a prima facie
assessment, he was placed under interim suspension from
practice by order of the BCI dated 27.02.2026, which was
thereafter implemented by the BCD through notification dated
28.02.2026.
65.14.The issue concerning the alleged discrepancy in vote figures
and the timing of reconciliation already stood addressed by the
RO and by orders of this Court dated 02.04.2026 in W.P.(C)
4316/2026 and 13.04.2026 in W.P.(C) 4907/2026, whereby it
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 42 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
was directed that reconciliation be undertaken before
declaration of the result. The Petitioners were, therefore, stated
to be precluded from reagitating the same grievance in the
present proceedings.
65.15.Reference was made to repeated incidents of disruption
allegedly involving some of the Petitioners, including those
dated 22.02.2026, 16.04.2026, 24.04.2026, 25.04.2026 and
05.05.2026, which were stated to have obstructed or delayed the
counting process. Such conduct is wholly inconsistent with the
standards of professional decorum expected of advocates and
that persons who obstruct institutional processes cannot
simultaneously seek equitable relief. On that basis, it was urged
that any grievance relating to counting or segregation of ballots
ought to be pursued before the designated Election Tribunals
and not through writ proceedings at an intermediate stage.
65.16.It is a settled canon of judicial discipline that litigants who
resort to extra-constitutional, unruly methods and undermine
institutional integrity cannot simultaneously seek the
indulgence of this Court. In view of such untoward and
contemptuous conduct, the Petitioners do not deserve any
audience or interim protection from this Court. Therefore, the
Writ Petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be
dismissed.
65.17.The ballot papers remained stored in sealed boxes under CCTV
surveillance, that their movement took place in the presence of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 43 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
candidates, and that the counting process was fully
videographed, live-streamed on YouTube, and made available
to stakeholders through the High Loop App and the candidates’
WhatsApp group wherein all notices / updates, including day-
wise counting update is informed to all the candidates.
65.18.Upon discovery on 15.04.2026 of manipulation in 18 ballot
papers, counting was immediately halted, the ballots were
documented by photography and videography, an FIR was
lodged against Mr. Nikhil Kumar, and the original DVR
recordings were handed over to the investigating agency. It was
submitted that, in accordance with the BCI Guidelines, the
affected ballots were segregated, and the votes were transferred
to reflect the voters’ original next preference, thereby
preserving the true intent of the ballot.
65.19.There was no realistic possibility of tampering during first-
preference counting, as each ballot box was brought to the
counting dais under continuous surveillance, opened in the
presence of the Election Committee and Special Returning
Officers, and its contents displayed on the podium in a manner
visible to candidates and their representatives through live
video feeds. On that basis, any manipulation could only have
occurred during the subsequent elimination stage between
13.04.2026 and 15.04.2026.
65.20.In complete alignment with the BCI Guidelines, the Election
Committee carried out meticulous reconciliation process aimed
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 44 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
entirely at protecting and honouring the true intention of the
voter. The manipulated ballots were safely segregated, and the
votes were transferred to clear, uncompromised next-best
preference marked by the voters.
65.21.Accordingly, all actions required under law were promptly
taken by the RO and the Election Committee upon discovery of
tampering and manipulation with the ballot papers.
65.22.In view of the same, the entire election process is not vitiated
since all adequate steps in accordance with law are already
taken to protect the integrity and sanctity of the BCD Election.
65.23.The Election Committee and the RO have given effect to the
true intention of the voter by giving benefit to the actual
beneficiary of all the 27 ballot papers by transferring the vote to
the beneficiary in favour of whom the voter had actually
intended to cast the vote by ignoring the manipulation.
65.24.Hence, there is no irregularity or any kind of manipulation of
the election process. Therefore, the HPESC has correctly passed
the Impugned Order rejecting the prayer for re-polling /
annulment of the BCD Election.
65.25.It was lastly submitted that the Petitioners, having participated
in the election process without demur, cannot now challenge the
rules governing it after the process has advanced. According to
the BCD, no objection was raised to the constitution of the
Special Committee, the Election Committee, the appointment of
the RO, or the conduct of first-preference counting until after
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 45 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
the tampering incident of 15.04.2026 and the apparent electoral
disadvantage to certain Petitioners. Their present challenge was,
therefore, stated to be belated, inconsistent with their prior
conduct, and liable to be rejected on principles of acquiescence
and delay.
65.26.From the above submissions, it is clear that the BCD is fully
committed to its Special Committee to conclude the BCD
Election for reconstitution of the BCD at the earliest in
compliance with the order dated 18.11.2025 passed in M.
Varadhan ( supra ) by taking all steps to ensure the compliance
with the MCC and the applicable rules and taking actions
against the person, who manipulated the ballot papers.
Accordingly, the BCD has initiated all requisite steps to
complete the election process with all promptitude, good faith
and right earnest.
66. Accordingly, the present Petitions deserve to be dismissed as no
interference is required with the Impugned Order passed by the HPESC.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS IN CMA:
67. The following submissions were made on behalf of the Applicants in
CMA:
67.1. The Petitioners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way
of Special Leave Petitions against the Impugned Order without
impleading the candidates, who were still in the fray. On
18.05.2026, while remanding the matters for consideration by
this Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed that further
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 46 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
counting of ballot papers shall be kept in abeyance till the
matter is decided finally. Thereafter, the Applicants in MA
approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court seeking the
modification of the order dated 18.05.2026 passed in Birender
Sangwan ( supra ) to the extent that counting should
recommence.
67.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 21.05.2026
passed in Birender Sangwan ( supra ) gave liberty to the
Applicants to seek interim directions from this Court.
67.3. Accordingly, CMA was numbered and listed before this Court
and the Applicants prayed for grant of the same interim relief
on the basis of contentions discussed below.
67.4. The constitution and functioning of the Bar Council is governed
by the BCD Rules. The BCD Rules also lay down provisions
for challenging the election of any person to the Council as also
the resolution of disputes pertaining to defacement / tampering
of ballot papers.
67.5. As per Rule 23(2) of the BCD Rules, any erasures, obliterations
or alterations in the voting paper constitute defacement and
votes cast by such papers shall not be taken into account and
that the decision of the Additional Solicitor General on whether
a voting paper has been defaced shall be final as per Rule 23(3)
of the BCD Rules.
67.6. The election of any candidate can be challenged by way of an
Election Petition presented under Rule 34(1) of the BCD Rules
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 47 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
by an Election Tribunal appointed by BCI under Rule 34(5) of
the BCD Rules.
67.7. Reliance was placed on Abhay Kumar Verma ( supra ) to submit
that this Court where the election to the Bar Council in 2003
was sought to be challenged on the basis of allegations similar
to the ones raised in the present Petitions such as tampering
discovered after the first stage of counting, held that writ
petitions challenging the election at the intermediate stage are
not maintainable and the election process is required to be
completed forthwith. This Court in Abhay Kumar Verma
( supra ) further held that any person aggrieved by the result of
the election can challenge the same by way of an election
petition in terms of Rule 35 of the BCD Rules and directed the
counting to be completed expeditiously and fixed a timeline for
the same.
67.8. Reliance was further placed on Kuldeep Kumar v UT
Chandigarh & Ors. , (2024) 3 SCC 526 to submit that
countermanding the election due to the allegation of tampering
of certain ballot papers would compound the destruction of
fundamental democratic principles due to such tampering and
that therefore, in Kuldeep Kumar ( supra ) as a remedial
measure, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the votes which
had been tampered to be counted in favour of the duly chosen
candidate.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 48 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
67.9. It is settled law that an election process once started should not
be interdicted by exercise of writ jurisdiction and the
appropriate remedy against the result of an election is by way of
institution of an election petition before an election tribunal
after the election is over. In support of the submissions, the
reliance was placed on the following judgments:
a. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sandeep Singh Bora v
Narendra Singh Deopa & Ors. , 2026 INSC 105, in the
context of elections to Panchayats and the bar under Article
243-O of the Constitution has reiterated that in respect of
individual grievances, the ultimate remedy lies by way of
election petitions, The election process should not be stalled
due to individual grievances and Courts should remain
mindful of the overarching public interest in ensuring
expeditious and smooth conclusion of the election process.
b. In N.P. Ponnuswami ( supra ), in the context of a challenge
to the judgment of the High Court rejecting the Petitioner's
challenge to rejection of his nomination by the RO relying
on Article 329(b), the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the
judgment of the High Court and laid down that elections
should be concluded as expeditiously as possible and
irregularities in the conduct of the process should only be
questioned by way of an election petition before a special
tribunal and not while the election is in progress.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 49 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
c. The law laid down in N.P. Ponnuswami ( supra ), was
reiterated in Mohinder Singh Gill ( supra ) and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court once again laid down that challenge which
seek to stall the election process as opposed to petitions
which seek its expeditious conclusion ought to wait till
culmination of the process which includes counting and the
declaration of the return of a candidate.
d. In Election Commission of India v. Shivaji , (1988) 1 SCC
277, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that even in cases
where allegations of non-compliance with the statutory
regime or provisions of the Constitution was raised in the
context of an election, any challenge to it could only be
entertained after the election process had culminated by way
of a duly instituted election petition.
e. Similarly, in Election Commission of India v. Ashok
Kumar , (2000) 8 SCC 216 once again the Hon’ble Supreme
Court reiterated that invoking of a judicial remedy for
calling in question an election or any challenge which has
the effect of interrupting, obstructing or protracting the
election proceedings must wait till completion of the
election process.
f. The law that the High Court should not interdict an election
process in motion has also been applied in the context of
elections other than to legislative bodies such as in the case
of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 50 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of
Maharashtra , (2001) 8 SCC 509 where the election was to a
Central Society registered under the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The writ petition was
dismissed, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the order
of the High Court.
67.10.The Impugned Order notes that the allegations pertaining to
tampering of ballot papers relate to the stage after the first
round of counting was over and no specific allegations of
misdeeds during the first round of counting have been made.
The Impugned Order further notes that the person who had
tampered with the ballot papers was caught tampering after the
first round of voting was over while distributing the votes of
one eliminated candidate. Thereafter, all the ballot papers of the
tables on which the accused had worked were re-checked and
corrections were made.
67.11.Mr. Nikhil Kumar joined the counting process on 02.04.2026,
that no counting took place on 10.04.2026 and 12.04.2026, and
that, after the incident was detected on 15.04.2026, immediate
corrective steps were taken, including reconciliation on
16.04.2026. It was further submitted that, as recorded by the
HPESC, all ballot papers at the tables where Mr. Nikhil Kumar
had worked were rechecked and necessary corrections made. A
total of 27 manipulated ballots were ultimately identified,
comprising 18 on 15/16.04.2026 and a further 9 after counting
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 51 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
resumed on 13.05.2026. According to the BCD, in each
instance the vote was transferred to the candidate in whose
favour the voter had originally marked the preference.
67.12.On that basis, it was urged that the incident did not vitiate the
entire election process and that the HPESC rightly declined the
prayer for re-polling or annulment.
REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS:
68. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners made the following
Rejoinder-submissions:
68.1. BCD has failed to point out any provision under the Advocates
Act or the BCI Rules, 1975 providing for an election petition in
respect of BCD Election. Further, as no election result has yet
been declared, any such remedy would in any event be premature.
The present Writ Petitions are, therefore, maintainable.
68.2. The expenditure allegedly incurred by BCD cannot justify
continuation of a process that stands affected by serious
allegations of ballot tampering and forgery. Financial
considerations cannot override electoral integrity. The alleged
inconvenience arising from reservation of premises for counting is
not a sufficient reason to resume counting despite the stay granted
in Birender Sangwan ( supra ).
68.3. The reliance placed on CCTV cameras, surveillance and
livestreaming is misplaced. Despite these safeguards, ballot
tampering was admittedly detected, raising serious concerns
about the fairness and reliability of the counting process.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 52 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
Having acknowledged the incident of ballot tampering and
initiated criminal proceedings, BCD cannot now contend that
continuation of the same counting process would be fair or in
the interests of justice.
68.4. The following material facts have remained unrebutted by
BCD:
a. On 15.04.2026, large-scale tampering of ballot papers was
detected during counting, allegedly resulting in votes being
altered in favour of a particular candidate.
b. The FIR was registered and Mr. Nikhil Kumar was arrested.
The FIR records that the investigation extends to other
unidentified persons, indicating a larger conspiracy.
c. Mr. Nikhil Kumar was part of the counting process from
02.04.2026 to 09.04.2026 and was present at the counting
tables throughout the first round.
d. The subsequent re-check of ballot papers was carried out
without adequate disclosure regarding the extent of tampering,
the methodology adopted, or the involvement of other persons.
e. The representation submitted by 116 candidates highlighted
several additional irregularities, including discrepancies in
vote counts, breach of ballot secrecy, presence of
unauthorized persons, unexplained breaks during counting,
improper identity verification, canvassing within polling
premises and lack of transparency in the counting process.
These concerns remain unanswered.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 53 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
f. The issue is not the integrity of the RO. The issue is that the
ballot papers were admittedly tampered with, and detection
of the fraud does not remove the effect of such tampering.
g. Mr. Vishnu Sharma, the candidate who allegedly benefited
from the tampering, himself stated that the fraud could not
have been committed without the involvement of multiple
insiders, thereby supporting the Petitioner’s case that the
conspiracy extends beyond one individual.
h. Mr. Vishnu Sharma also referred to allegations that
approximately 400 forged or duplicate ballot papers had
entered the election process. This serious allegation remains
unaddressed.
i. He further raised concerns regarding lack of security at the
counting venue and the accessibility of ballot papers to
persons other than authorised counting staff.
j. Mr. Vishnu Sharma himself suggested that the ballot papers
should be examined by an independent committee and
subjected to forensic examination by CFSL.
k. He also referred to allegations that CCTV cameras were
removed during the crucial stage of second-preference
counting, thereby raising serious doubts regarding
transparency.
l. The statements made by Mr. Vishnu Sharma support several
concerns raised by the Petitioner and other candidates,
including the possibility of a wider conspiracy, forged ballot
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 54 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
papers, security lapses, removal of cameras and the need for
an independent forensic examination before counting is
allowed to continue.
68.5. BCD’s claim that the counting process was clearly visible
through the live telecast is also incorrect. According to the
Petitioners, most viewers watching the proceedings on
YouTube could not properly see the ballot papers, as no zoom-
in or zoom-out facility was available during the livestream.
68.6. It was further submitted that the application / platform used for
streaming the counting process was not functioning properly,
thereby affecting the transparency of the process.
68.7. In response to BCD’s submissions regarding the intention of the
voters, it was submitted that different coloured inks were used
to mark preferences on the ballot papers. This, according to the
Petitioners, raise concerns of tampering of the ballot papers and
therefore the disputed ballot papers cannot be justified on the
basis of voter intention.
68.8. The candidates, who were suspended on account of failure to
comply with the applicable rules cannot be treated in the same
manner as those who complied with them. Such candidates
should not be granted the same benefit as rule-abiding
candidates.
68.9. BCD has not specifically denied or rebutted the Petitioners’
allegation that eight to ten cameras deployed during the
counting process were removed.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 55 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
68.10.The Election Committee cannot be vested with unrestricted
powers to supervise the election process, appoint members,
monitor the conduct of elections, and simultaneously perform
functions akin to those of an election tribunal.
68.11.Lastly, it was submitted that the suspension of candidates ought
to have resulted in their elimination from the electoral process,
with the votes cast in their favour being transferred in
accordance with the applicable preferential voting system.
According to the Petitioners, the failure to do so has affected
the counting process.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
69. Having considered the submissions made by the Parties, the main
issues that arise for our consideration are as under:
i. Whether these Petitions are maintainable and this Court can
entertain the present Petitions?
ii. Whether the Special Committee of the BCD exceeded its
powers and function as the RO or Election Committee?
iii. Whether the violation of MCC vitiated the entire election
process?
iv. Whether reconciliation must be undertaken before the
commencement of second-preference counting or after
completion of counting and before declaration of the result?
v. Whether the criminal act of tampering with the ballot papers
have vitiated the entire election process so as to require re-
polling for the BCD Election?
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 56 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
vi. Whether there was any chance of tampering during the
counting of the first preference votes?
vii. Whether there was any poor visual display of ballot papers to
the candidates during the counting of votes?
Maintainability and jurisdiction
70. The learned Counsel for the BCD and the learned Senior Counsel for
the Applicants in CMA No. 38198 have raised a preliminary objection with
regard to the maintainability and jurisdiction of this Court to entertain and
decide the present Petitions.
71. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the BCD that these
Petitions seek to set aside the Impugned Order and re-polling for the BCD
Election or in the alternative a Court-supervised forensic examination of the
ballot papers before the results are declared, however, the present Writ
Petitions are not maintainable as the writ jurisdiction is ousted once the
election schedule is declared and the election process has commenced. It
was further submitted that Article 329(b) of the Constitution stipulates an
absolute bar against entertaining any writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution relating to elections while an election remains in progress.
72. The learned Counsel for the BCD submitted that all grievances
touching upon the conduct of election must await their proper ventilation
exclusively through the mechanism of an election petition presented before
the appropriate Election Tribunal after the conclusion of the election. It was
further submitted that the ongoing counting of votes is part of the electoral
process and the term ‘election’ provided in Part-XV of the Constitution has
to be construed in the widest sense and encompasses the entire proceedings
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 57 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
from the date of notification of the election schedule till the declaration of
the results. It was also submitted that the allegations in the present Petitions
are factual in nature and require evidence to be led and, therefore, such
disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. It was
submitted that such grievances must await the conclusion of the election
process and can only be ventilated through an election petition.
73. The learned Counsel for the BCD submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in M. Varadhan ( supra ) vide order dated 18.11.2025 in Paragraph No.
20, has categorically held that:
“ 20. Any person who is aggrieved by the decision of the High-
Powered Election Committee shall be at liberty to approach the
High-Powered Supervisory Committee. The decision taken by the
Supervisory Committee shall be final. No civil court or High Court
shall entertain any petition(s) against such decision.”
74. In view of the above, it was contended that this Court has no power to
entertain the present Petitions against the decisions of the HPESC.
75. The learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants in CMA has submitted
that the Petitioners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of the
SLPs against the Impugned Order without impleading the candidates who
were still in the fray. Therefore, the Applicants, who are leading in the BCD
Election have filed CMA to oppose these Petitions. It was submitted that the
election process once started should not be interdicted by exercise of writ
jurisdiction and relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sandeep Singh Bora ( supra ), N.P. Ponnuswami ( supra ), Mohinder Singh
Gill ( supra ) to submit that the present batch of Writ Petitions is not
maintainable as any challenge in the context of an election could only be
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 58 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
entertained after the election process has culminated by duly instituted
election petition.
76. The Petitioners-in-person as well as their Counsel submitted that the
present Petitions are maintainable as these are transferred Petitions
converted from the Special Leave Petitions filed before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court for adjudication on merits after recording agreements of the
Parties for referring these Petitions to this Bench. The orders dated
18.05.2026 and 21.05.2026 passed in Birender Sangwan ( supra ) clearly
indicate that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consciously transferred these
Petitions to undertake the factual exercise to ascertain whether there were
gross irregularities and malpractices in the election process including the
counting of the votes while staying the process of counting of votes till the
disposal of the present Petitions by this Court. Accordingly, it was submitted
that the preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability and
jurisdiction being raised by the BCD and the Applicants in the CMA is
misconceived.
77. We have considered the rival submissions on the issue of
maintainability and jurisdiction. As regards Paragraph No. 20 of the order
dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Varadhan
( supra ), it is directed that the decision taken by the HPESC shall be final and
no Civil Court or High Court shall entertain any petition against such
decision. Therefore, the Petitioners preferred SLPs against the Impugned
Order passed by the HPESC. During the course of the hearing of the SLPs,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.05.2026 observed that the
parties agreed to the suggestion by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it would
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 59 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
be appropriate if the matter is entrusted to a Division Bench of this Court.
Consequently, the SLPs were transferred to this Court and re-numbered as
the Writ Petitions. The said order further records that the parties shall be at
liberty to raise all the contentions before this Court.
78. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was conscious of its own
direction in Paragraph No. 20 of M. Varadhan ( supra ) while transferring the
Special Leave Petitions to this Court for effective adjudication, while
reserving the liberty of all parties to raise all the contentions before this
Court. In view of the same, the order dated 18.11.2025 passed in M.
Varadhan ( supra ) will not put any embargo on this Bench for hearing the
Writ Petitions in view of the order dated 18.05.2026 passed in Birender
Sangwan ( supra ).
79. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted liberty to all parties to
raise all contentions before this Court, it remains open to the BCD and the
Applicants in the CMA to urge the jurisdictional objection notwithstanding
that the same was not raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
80. The principal objection urged by learned counsel for the BCD and
learned Senior Counsel for the Applicants in the CMA pertains to judicial
interference with an electoral process once the same has commenced. It is
well settled that, once the election process has been set in motion, the writ
jurisdiction ought not ordinarily to be invoked so as to interdict the same,
and the aggrieved parties are generally required to pursue their grievances
by way of an election petition after conclusion of the election. The exercise
of writ jurisdiction in such matters is, therefore, exceedingly limited and can
be justified only in rare and exceptional circumstances where the election
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 60 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
process is shown to stand vitiated in its entirety, warranting judicial scrutiny
notwithstanding the pendency of the electoral process.
81. It is the case of the Petitioners that widespread irregularities,
commencing from the inception of the electoral process for the BCD
Election and culminating in the lodging of FIR in respect of manipulation of
ballot papers, have so eroded the credibility of the process that this Court,
while exercising jurisdiction in these transferred petitions, ought to direct a
re-poll for the BCD Election.
82. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the issue that falls for
consideration is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
the high threshold for exercise of writ jurisdiction stands satisfied so as to
justify interference with the electoral process after its commencement.
83. The learned Counsel for BCD placed reliance on decisions of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami (s upra ), Ashok Kumar
( supra ), Shaji K. Joseph ( supra ), Mandeep Singh ( supra ), Jyoti Basu
( supra ), Vishwanath Pratap Singh ( supra ) and Kuldeep Kumar ( supra ) to
submit that there is an absolute bar against judicial interference in the
process of elections once the elections have commenced and that contesting
for election is not a fundamental right but a statutory right.
84. There is no cavil with the propositions laid down in the
aforementioned authorities. However, the issue of maintainability of the
Writ Petitions is required to be examined from a different perspective:
i. Firstly, the order dated 18.05.2026 in the case of Birender
Sangwan ( supra ) also shows that the case of M. Varadhan
( supra ) was also listed on the same date since the order passed
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 61 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
in Birender Sangwan ( supra ) mentions the number of the case
of M. Varadhan ( supra ), which is Writ Petition (Civil) No.
1319/2023 and consequently, the order dated 18.11.2025
passed in M. Varadhan ( supra ) stood modified vide order
dated 18.05.2026 passed in Birender Sangwan ( supra ).
ii. Secondly , Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India was a member of
the Bench which passed the order in the case of M. Varadhan
( supra ) on 18.11.2025. He was also member of the Bench
which passed the order dated 18.05.2026 in Birender Sangwan
( supra ).
iii. Thirdly , the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution is a constitutionally conferred jurisdiction
which cannot be ordinarily taken away unless specifically
prohibited under the statute.
iv. Fourthly , the order dated 18.11.2025 passed in M. Varadhan
( supra ) is only an interlocutory order passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as the main cases are still pending before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. Interlocutory orders can be modified
and changed. In this view of the matter, the order passed on
18.11.2025 in the case of M. Varadhan ( supra ) cannot be
treated as final order.
85. Additionally, the order passed on 18.11.2025 is in exercise of power
under Article 142 of the Constitution, which is exercised by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in order to do complete justice in a particular case, but it
does not result in declaration of law which is binding under Article 141 of
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 62 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
the Constitution of India. Reference can be made to a Three Judges
Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih
(White Washer) , (2014) 8 SCC 883. Relevant Paragraph is extracted herein
under:
12. Article 142 of the Constitution of India is supplementary in
“
nature and cannot supplant the substantive provisions, though they
are not limited by the substantive provisions in the statute. It is a
power that gives preference to equity over law. It is a justice-
oriented approach as against the strict rigours of the law. The
directions issued by the Court can normally be categorised into one,
in the nature of moulding of relief and the other, as the declaration
of law. “Declaration of law” as contemplated in Article 141 of the
Constitution: is the speech express or necessarily implied by the
highest court of the land. This Court in Indian Bank v. ABS Marine
Products (P) Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 72] , Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of
Bihar [(2006) 8 SCC 381 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1986] and in State of
U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi [(2006) 1 SCC 667 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 190]
has expounded the principle and extolled the power of Article 142 of
the Constitution of India to new heights by laying down that the
directions issued under Article 142 do not constitute a binding
precedent unlike Article 141 of the Constitution of India. They are
direction issued to do proper justice and exercise of such power,
cannot be considered as law laid down by the Supreme Court under
Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The Court has
compartmentalised and differentiated the relief in the operative
portion of the judgment by exercise of powers under Article 142 of
the Constitution as against the law declared. The directions of the
Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, while moulding the
relief, that relax the application of law or exempt the case in hand
from the rigour of the law in view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances do not comprise the ratio decidendi and therefore
lose its basic premise of making it a binding precedent. This Court
on the qui vive has expanded the horizons of Article 142 of the
Constitution by keeping it outside the purview of Article 141 of the
Constitution and by declaring it a direction of the Court that
changes its complexion with the peculiarity in the facts and
circumstances of the case. ”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 63 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
86. Ordinarily, the present Writ Petitions would not merit entertainment
in exercise of writ jurisdiction, inasmuch as the facts pleaded do not, at first
blush, disclose circumstances falling within the narrow exception warranting
judicial interference with an ongoing electoral process. The allegations
raised in the Writ Petitions pertain to irregularities during polling and to
issues arising in the course of counting, each of which may appropriately be
examined by the Election Tribunals constituted pursuant to the directions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, once the BCD Election stand concluded, in
accordance with Rule 34(1) of the BCD Rules, which reads as under:
“ 34. Disputes as to the validity of elections: (1) Any voter may
contest the validity of the election of a candidate declared to have
been elected to the Bar Council by a petition signed by him and
supported by an affidavit and delivered to the Secretary personally
or sent by registered post so as to reach him within 15 days from the
date of publications of the results of the election. ”
87. However, having regard to the order dated 18.05.2026 passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court transferring the present Writ Petitions to this Court
for adjudication on merits, it would not be appropriate to non-suit the
Petitioners in those transferred matters on the ground of maintainability alone.
We, therefore, proceed to examine the rival contentions on merits as well.
88. Moreover, in the Writ Petition, the correctness of Impugned Order
passed by the HPESC, which has been constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court to supervise the elections of the Bar Councils of all the States, has
been challenged. Consequently, objection for refusing to entertain the Writ
Petition does not have merit. Nonetheless, at this stage this Court is
conscious of limited scope of interference when counting is ongoing and its
results are yet to be announced.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 64 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
89. As regards W.P.(C) 7972/2026, titled Rudra Vikram Singh v. Bar
Council of Delhi & Ors. , the same has been filed directly before this Court
without approaching the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of
HPESC for seeking the following reliefs:
“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing
Respondents not to count the votes casted to the 79 Suspended
candidates during their suspension period.
b) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing
Respondents to clarify on what grounds the suspension of 79
candidates revoked without filling any appeal by those 79 candidates
against the suspension order dated 22.02.2026.
c) Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction directing
Respondents to submit the action taken report against the candidates
who violated Model Code of Conduct.”
90. Although, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7972/2026 was part of the
representations considered by the HPESC while passing the Impugned
Order, as no Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court challenging the Impugned Order, the Petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.7972/2026 does not have the benefit of order dated 18.05.2026 passed by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Birender Sangwan (supra) as the directions
therein were confined to the matters transferred from the Hon’ble Supreme
Court to this special Bench.
91. However, since the issues sought to be urged in W.P.(C) 7972/2026
substantially overlap with those raised in the transferred Writ Petitions,
which are being examined on merits in view of the orders dated 18.05.2026
and 21.05.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Birender Sangwan
( supra ), W.P.(C) No.7972/2026 is also being considered on merits along
with the Writ Petitions.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 65 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
92. Hence, we do not find any merit in the jurisdictional objection raised
by the BCD and the Applicants in the CMA and the same is rejected.
Role and Function of the Special Committee of BCD
93. Pursuant to Section 8A of the Advocates Act, BCI constituted the
Special Committee on 10.10.2025 to exercise the powers and perform all the
functions of the BCD since the election of BCD was not conducted before
the expiry of the term of five years since its last election, which was held in
2018.
94. In the order dated 18.11.2025 passed in M. Varadhan ( supra ), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has recognized the constitution of the Special
Committee consisting of two eminent Senior Advocates, one of whom is
also serving as the Additional Solicitor General of India and entrusted the
Special Committee to perform the function of the High Powered Election
Committee as envisaged in the said order.
95. The Petitioners contended that the functions of the Special Committee
and the Election Committee overlapped, as both operated under the same
administrative framework. They further alleged that the Special Committee
and the RO functioned as a single entity, thereby compromising the Special
Committee’s role as the High-Powered Election Committee.
96. The RO, a former Judge of this Court, was appointed by the Special
Committee. The Special Committee also constituted the five-member
Election Committee on 18.12.2025, with the RO as its Chairperson.
97. Before notification of the BCD Election, the Special Committee,
acting as the BCD, issued an advisory dated 03.11.2025 directing removal of
hoardings, ballots, posters and similar material, and cautioning prospective
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 66 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
candidates against conduct bringing disrepute to the legal profession. After
the appointment of the RO and constitution of the Election Committee, all
correspondence, notices and advisories were issued by the office of the RO
or the Election Committee. The Special Committee also functioned as the
High-Powered Election Committee, as evidenced by its consideration of
candidates’ representations and its resolutions thereon.
98. The examination of record placed on record indicates that the RO and
the Election Committee functioned independently of the Special Committee.
Nothing on record suggests any overlap, or that the RO acted under the
Special Committee’s instructions.
99. The Special Committee performed a dual role: as the BCD under
Section 8A of the Advocates Act and as the High-Powered Election
Committee under the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Varadhan
( supra ). Those functions were discharged independently, while supervision
of the election and counting remained with the RO and the Election
Committee.
100. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Petitioners’ contention that the
functions of the Special Committee and the RO overlapped.
Violation of MCC and other irregularities during the polling for the BCD
Election
101. The Petitioners contended that the entire electoral process stood
vitiated by violations of the MCC and other irregularities during polling. In
support, they relied on the incident of 22.02.2026, when 79 candidates were
issued suspension notices for alleged breaches of Clause 9.1 of the MCC,
including sloganeering near the polling area, distribution of campaign
material, display of flex hoardings, and similar prohibited acts.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 67 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
102. The Petitioners further contended that votes cast in favour of those 79
candidates during the period of suspension, from 22.02.2026 until
revocation of the suspension by the Election Committee, ought not to have
been counted.
103. At the outset, the MCC is intended to secure a free, fair, and
transparent electoral process by regulating the conduct of candidates and
their supporters and preserving the dignity and integrity of the election.
However, not every infraction of the MCC vitiates the entire electoral
process.
104. The MCC itself prescribes the consequences of breach. Clause 10.1
treats any violation as misconduct; Clause 10.2 provides for immediate
elimination of the candidate concerned; Clause 10.3 contemplates
redistribution of votes already received by such candidate; and Clause 10.4
declares the Election Committee’s decision final and binding. Thus, while
the MCC provides specific consequences for its breach, it does not
contemplate that every violation would, by itself, vitiate the entire electoral
process or require a re-poll.
105. In our prima facie view, the counting of votes cast in favour of the 79
candidates during the period of suspension does not establish that the
election process stood vitiated as no prejudice to the Petitioners has been
shown at this stage. The suspension notices issued on 22.02.2026 were
answered by the concerned candidates and, upon consideration of their
explanations, the Election Committee withdrew the notices on 23.02.2026,
before commencement of polling on that day, and permitted them to
continue in the election. The decision to revoke the notices and direct strict
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 68 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
adherence to the MCC was taken by the authority entrusted with supervision
of the election upon assessment of the prevailing facts and circumstances.
106. The material placed on record further shows that the Election
Committee and the RO actively addressed MCC violations throughout the
election process. Advisories, notices, and warnings were issued from time to
time cautioning candidates against surrogate campaigning, unauthorised
canvassing, organisation of parties, financial inducements, and other
prohibited conduct. The Election Committee also adopted a zero-tolerance
approach and repeatedly warned that MCC violations would invite serious
consequences. The notice dated 12.02.2026, captioned “Final Urgent Notice:
Zero Tolerance Policy for MCC Violations”, itself demonstrates that
compliance with the MCC was being closely monitored and remedial
measures taken wherever necessary.
107. The Petitioners also contended that many voters were permitted to
vote without proper verification. According to them, several candidates
whose enrolment status on the BCD website still reflected pending degree
verification were nevertheless allowed to contest the election. They further
submitted that many advocates enrolled in 2024, 2025, and earlier, whose
names appeared in the final voter list, also showed pending verification on
the BCD website. It was argued that, if such candidates or voters were later
found to possess fake or invalid degrees, the votes cast by them would be
invalid and that the inclusion of such votes furnished a further ground to
invalidate the entire election process.
108. We find no merit in the above contention. The Resolution dated
09.01.2026 passed by the Special Committee, pursuant to the direction in
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 69 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
Umesh Kumar ( supra ), expressly included candidates provisionally enrolled
with the BCD who had qualified the All India Bar Examination and
submitted the verification form on or before 30.11.2025. It also included
candidates permitted to take the examination prior to enrolment who had
submitted the verification form by that date, notwithstanding their
appearance in the deferred/withheld list, provided they had qualified the
examination. In any event, it would not be possible in writ jurisdiction to
invalidate the entire election process on disputed questions of fact. The
Petitioners also have an alternative remedy of filing an election petition
before the Election Tribunal under the BCD Rules after completion of the
election process, which right is always available and kept open despite filing
these Petition.
109. Given that these allegations principally concern campaign-related
misconduct, polling grievances, and breaches of electoral discipline, such
complaints may justify action against individual candidates, including
disqualification or disciplinary proceedings. However, the material available
on record falls short of establishing that the alleged MCC violations or other
irregularities vitiated the electoral process as a whole to warrant the
extraordinary relief of a re-poll.
110. Accordingly, the Petitioners shall be at liberty to take up all other
contentions with regard to allegation of violation of MCC, irregular polling
practice, unauthorised canvassing, misuse of mobile phones and
unauthorised access to ballot papers and strongroom in the Election Petition
before the Election Tribunal after declaration of results.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 70 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
111. In view of the above, the challenge to the BCD Election founded on
alleged MCC violations and other polling irregularities is rejected, while
reserving the rights of the Petitioners to approach the Election Tribunal by
way of Election Petition(s), if any, after the conclusion of the BCD Election
in accordance with the applicable rules and law, if so advised.
Allegations with regard to excess votes and the timing for reconsideration of
the votes
112. The Petitioners contend that, at the close of first-preference counting,
there remained an unexplained variance of 1,469 votes. According to them,
although 17,585 votes were recorded on 21.02.2026, an excess of 404 votes
was found at closure; on 22.02.2026, 16,300 votes were recorded with an
excess of 200; and on 23.02.2026, 23,800 votes were recorded with a deficit
of 865.
113. By order dated 20.03.2026, the RO informed the candidates that
reconciliation would be undertaken after completion of the counting process.
That order was challenged in W.P.(C) 4316/2026, which was disposed of on
02.04.2026 with a direction that the results of the BCD Election shall be
declared only after reconciliation.
114. Thereafter, a request for immediate reconciliation before
commencement of eliminations was rejected by the RO by order dated
07.04.2026, recording the Election Committee’s decision that reconciliation
would be carried out only after completion of counting and before
declaration of results. The challenge thereto in W.P.(C) 4907/2026 was
disposed of on 13.04.2026, this Court recording that the result would not be
declared prior to completion of reconciliation.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 71 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
115. The orders dated 02.04.2026 in W.P.(C) 4316/2026 and 13.04.2026 in
W.P.(C) 4907/2026 have not been challenged. The issue concerning the
alleged excess votes and the timing of reconciliation is, therefore, no longer
open for re-agitation in these proceedings. The learned Single Judge has
already protected the interests of the candidates by directing that no result be
declared before reconciliation.
116. In view thereof, the Petitioners cannot be permitted to reopen the
controversy regarding the alleged excess votes or the stage at which
reconciliation is to be undertaken. The directions recorded in the aforesaid
orders bind the BCD, the RO and the Election Committee.
117. No further directions are, therefore, required on the issue of alleged
excess votes or reconciliation prior to declaration of the results as the same
has already been adequately addressed in W.P.(C) 4316/2026 and W.P.(C)
4907/2026 and the orders passed therein were not assailed in the SLPs and,
therefore, do not form part of the present Writ Petitions.
118. Accordingly, the directions contained in the orders dated 02.04.2026
and 13.04.2026 in W.P.(C) 4316/2026 and W.P.(C) 4907/2026 respectively
are hereby reiterated, and the objection on this score stands disposed of.
Whether tampering with the ballot papers have vitiated the entire election
process
119. The Petitioners have contended that once the tampering of the ballot
papers has been admittedly discovered, the continuation of the process of
counting without independent scrutiny would defeat the legitimate
expectation of free and fair elections.
120. The Petitioners have also submitted that since the FIR has already
been filed against the culprit and the investigation is ongoing, till such time
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 72 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
the investigation is completed, it would not be possible to determine the
impact of the manipulation of the ballot papers carried out during the
counting process. It was also submitted that, admittedly, the culprit, Mr.
Nikhil Kumar, was present during the counting process from 02.04.2026 till
15.04.2026 and, therefore, the exact damage committed by him would be
unknown till such time the forensic analysis and the investigation is
completed.
121. The BCD has contended that although Mr. Nikhil Kumar joined the
counting on 02.04.2026, during the initial six days until 09.04.2026 the first
preference votes were being recorded directly from the ballot boxes placed
on the podium in a manner visible to the candidates. No counting was
undertaken during 10.04.2026 and 12.04.2026. The counting resumed on
13.04.2026 and the tampering of the ballot papers was discovered on
15.04.2026. Accordingly, it was submitted by the BCD that the tampering of
the ballot papers would have taken place only between 13.04.2026 and
15.04.2026. It was further submitted by the BCD that immediate and
appropriate legal action was taken by the RO / Election Committee on
15.04.2026 itself. It was further submitted by the BCD that on 16.04.2026, a
comprehensive reconciliation of the votes was undertaken by rechecking the
ballot papers of the tables on which Mr. Nikhil Kumar had worked from
02.04.2026. Accordingly, it was submitted that even though the tampering /
manipulation of the ballot papers was discovered, it did not impact the entire
election process as the appropriate steps under law as well as BCI
Guidelines have been taken to ensure that the results of the BCD Election is
not impacted.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 73 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
122. It was further submitted by the BCD that when the counting resumed
on 16.04.2026, the reconciliation of votes was carried out as per the BCI
Guidelines by giving effect to the true intention of the voters by giving
benefit to the actual beneficiary. It was further submitted that on 16.04.2026,
total 18 ballot papers were found to be manipulated and thereafter, when the
counting process resumed on 13.05.2026 pursuant to the Impugned Order, 9
manipulated ballot papers were discovered. Accordingly, till the passing of
the order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court directing to not continue with the
counting till such time the present Writ Petitions are decided, total 27 ballot
papers were found to be manipulated.
123. We have considered the impact of the incident occurred on
15.04.2026, when the Election Committee discovered the manipulation of
the ballot papers. Immediately upon discovery of the manipulation in the
ballot papers, the counting was halted and the FIR was registered by the
police. The Election Committee, thereafter, recalled the 18 effected ballots
and transferred the votes to a candidate against whose name the original next
preference was marked by ignoring the manipulation / tampering done on
the ballot papers thereby giving the effect to true intention of the voters.
124. When the counting re-commenced on 16.04.2026, a comprehensive
th
reconciliation up to 80 elimination was carried out by the Election
Committee and 18 ballot papers were found to be manipulated. When the
counting was carried out pursuant to the Impugned Order from 13.05.2026,
additional 9 ballot papers were found to be manipulated. Accordingly, till
such time the counting was stopped on 18.05.2026 pursuant to order dated
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 74 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
18.05.2026 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Birender Sangwan
( supra ), total 27 manipulated ballot papers were identified.
125. Accordingly, the possibility that additional ballot papers may have
been manipulated, beyond the 27 already identified, cannot be ruled out. The
question for consideration is whether such manipulation has vitiated the
entire BCD election process so as to warrant a re-poll.
126. Further, the HPESC has in the Impugned Order has already taken
sufficient steps by directing recounting of votes from the stage when
counting of the second preference votes started in order to rule out the
impact of alleged tampering of ballot papers.
127. Under Rule 23(2) of the BCD Rules, any voting paper containing
erasures, obliterations, or alterations is deemed to be defaced, and no vote
purportedly cast thereon can be taken into account. Rule 23(3) of the BCD
Rules further provides that the decision of the learned Additional Solicitor
General as to whether a voting paper has or has not been defaced shall be
final. Rules 23(2) and 23(3) of the BCD Rules are reproduced below:
“ 23. Method of Voting
(2) A voting paper shall not be signed by a voter, and in the event of
any erasures, obliterations or alterations in the voting paper or of
the voting paper purporting to have been signed by the voter, the
voting paper shall be deemed to have been defaced and no votes
purporting to have been given thereby shall be taken into account
for the purposes of the election. ”
(3) The decision of the Additional Solicitor General whether a
voting paper has or has not been defaced shall be final. ”
128. Further, the BCI Guidelines issued to ensure uniformity in the
counting of ballot papers provide that no member of the counting staff shall
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 75 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
add to, overwrite, retrace, correct, or otherwise alter any preference marking
on any ballot paper, and that such staff shall confine their role strictly to
scrutiny and counting of preferences as actually cast by the voter. The
Guidelines further provide that any ballot paper showing overwriting,
erasures, additions, physical alteration, or other suspicious features shall be
immediately segregated as doubtful and dealt with strictly in accordance
with the prescribed procedure, with brief reasons recorded. They also
require that rejected and doubtful ballots be segregated table-wise in
separate sealed bundles or packets, endorsed with brief reasons, and
preserved to maintain an objective record in the event of any grievance. The
safeguards are to be applied uniformly during scrutiny and counting to
prevent avoidable invalidation of ballots where the voter’s intention is
clearly expressed, while preserving the integrity and credibility of the
counting process. The relevant extract of the BCI Guidelines dated
11.02.2026 is reproduced below:
“10. In order to address apprehensions relating to possible later
addition or alteration at the stage of unfolding or handling, it
is requested that unfolding and scrutiny is conducted under
direct and continuous supervision with uniform instructions at
all counting tables; that no member of the counting staff adds
to, overwrites, retraces, corrects, or otherwise alters any
preference marking on any ballot paper and confines the role
strictly to scrutiny and counting of preferences as actually cast
by the voter; and that any ballot showing overwriting,
erasures, additions, physical alteration, or suspicious features
is immediately segregated as doubtful and dealt with strictly in
accordance with the prescribed procedure with brief reasons
recorded.
11. It is also requested that rejected and doubtful ballots are
segregated tablewise in separate sealed bundles or packets
with brief reasons endorsed and preserved, so that uniformity,
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 76 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
transparency, and an objective record are maintained in the
event any grievance is raised before the competent
committee(s).
12. It may be noted that such segregation and preservation of
rejected and doubtful ballots, with brief endorsed reasons,
assists in ensuring transparency and in maintaining an
objective record, should any issue be raised before the
competent committee(s).
13. The present communication is being circulated to all State Bar
Councils, all High-Powered Election Committees, and all
Returning Officers to inform that the above clarification has
already been issued in one such case, and that the same
principles and safeguards should be applied uniformly during
scrutiny and counting in all State Bar Council elections, so as
to prevent avoidable invalidation of ballots where voter
intention is clearly expressed, while simultaneously preserving
the integrity and credibility of the counting process.”
129. In view of the above, Rules 23 (2) and 23(3) of the BCD Rules read
with the relevant provisions of the BCI Guidelines contemplate that ballot
papers bearing overwriting, corrections, erasures, additions, or other
suspicious variations shall be treated as “doubtful”, and the decision in that
regard shall be taken by the learned Additional Solicitor General, which
shall be treated as final.
130. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the admitted
manipulation of ballot papers by a member of the counting staff must be
dealt with in the manner prescribed by the BCD Rules and the BCI
Guidelines instead of directing re-polling as demanded by the Petitioners,
especially having considered the effect of such manipulation and applicable
the BCD Rules and the BCI Guidelines that already provide adequate
safeguards for counting votes in cases involving tampered ballot papers. No
prejudice would, therefore, be caused to any candidate if effect is given to
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 77 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
the true intention of the voter in accordance with those provisions.
Consequently, the entire BCD Election does not warrant a fresh poll merely
because such manipulated ballot papers were identified during the counting
process.
131. The proper consequence of such manipulation is that any ballot paper
bearing erasures, overwriting, corrections, additions, or other suspicious
variations shall be segregated and kept in sealed bundles or packets marked
as “doubtful ballots”. Such doubtful ballots shall be placed before the
learned Additional Solicitor General, who shall determine the manner in
which they are to be counted and record brief reasons in respect of each such
ballot. Upon reasons being so recorded, the decision of the learned
Additional Solicitor General shall be final, and preferences shall be allocated
accordingly. The doubtful ballots and the reasons so recorded shall be
preserved separately.
132. This procedure shall ensure that effect is given to the voter’s intention
without causing prejudice to any candidate. It also obviates the need for a re-
poll and avoids the substantial expense of conducting the BCD Election
afresh, since the alleged manipulation does not go to the root of the electoral
process, the manner of dealing with such an eventuality being already
provided for in the BCD Rules read with the BCI Guidelines.
133. We, therefore, do not consider it appropriate to direct a re-poll for the
BCD Election, as the incident of manipulation of ballot papers did not vitiate
the electoral process in its entirety. We, accordingly, uphold the Impugned
Order insofar as it declined the prayer for a re-poll or annulment of the BCD
Election.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 78 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
134. Additionally, to obviate the recurrence of any such incident, we direct
that no counting staff shall be engaged through Mr. Prabodh Kumar. All
counting staff shall be engaged only after due verification, issuance of photo
identity cards, and submission of an undertaking confirming that no conflict
of interest exists with any contesting candidate.
Whether there was any chance of tampering during the counting of the first
preference votes?
135. Having held that no re-poll is warranted in respect of the BCD
Election, the next question is whether recount of the first-preference votes is
required.
136. The Petitioners contended that, by reason of the admitted
manipulation of ballot papers, the entire election process, including the
counting of first-preference votes, stood affected, since Mr. Nikhil Kumar,
who was identified as having engaged in such manipulation, was present
between 02.04.2026 and 09.04.2026 when first-preference counting was
undertaken.
137. On that basis, it was submitted by the Petitioners that the counting of
first-preference votes stood vitiated solely by the presence of the said
individual during that stage of the counting process.
138. We have viewed the video recordings of the first-preference counting.
They show that each sealed and locked ballot box was brought to the
counting podium under continuous camera surveillance, and that the seals
and locks were opened on the podium in the presence of members of the
Election Committee and the Special Returning Officers, and in the virtual
presence of the candidates and their authorised representatives seated on the
th
6 Floor, S-Block, High Court of Delhi. Each ballot paper, upon being taken
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 79 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
out of the ballot box, was placed on the podium in a manner visible to the
candidates and their representatives. The ballot papers were scrutinised by
the Election Committee and the Special Returning Officers in accordance
with the applicable procedure, and the votes recorded thereon were
announced during the counting process.
139. In view of the above, we are unable to accept the Petitioners’
submission that the counting of first-preference votes stood vitiated. In our
considered view, there was no real possibility of tampering during the
counting of first-preference votes.
140. Although Mr. Nikhil Kumar was present between 02.04.2026 and
09.04.2026, no possibility of tampering arises in relation to the counting of
first-preference votes. Any such tampering could only have occurred
between 13.04.2026 and 15.04.2026, as no counting took place on
10.04.2026 and 12.04.2026, and the manipulation of ballot papers was
detected on 15.04.2026 after counting resumed on 13.04.2026. Upon
discovery of the manipulation, immediate and appropriate action was taken
by the RO and the Election Committee on 15.04.2026 itself.
141. Further, interpolation of ballot papers during first-preference counting
appears inherently improbable, as the identities of the candidates likely to be
eliminated in subsequent rounds were not then known.
142. On 16.04.2026, the Election Committee undertook a comprehensive
reconciliation of all ballot papers from the tables at which Mr. Nikhil Kumar
had worked since 02.04.2026. This fact was placed before the HPESC,
which recorded in the Impugned Order that all ballot papers from those
tables had been rechecked and the necessary corrections made. The HPESC
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 80 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
accordingly concluded that fresh recounting shall take place from the
second-preference stage.
143. We concur with the finding of the HPESC that the counting of first-
preference votes was valid and that no recount of first-preference votes is
required as although manipulation of ballot papers was discovered, it did not
affect the counting of first-preference votes.
144. In view of our observations, we hold that no recount of first-
preference votes is warranted.
Allegations regarding poor visual display during counting
145. The Petitioners contended that, although CCTV cameras were
th
installed on the 7 Floor of S-Block, High Court of Delhi, where the
counting was taking place, the video quality was hazy and the camera angle
did not permit the entire ballot paper to be seen, making it impossible to
verify the basis on which preferences were transferred.
146. The videos shown during the hearing lend some credence to the
Petitioners’ contention. They indicate that a high-resolution camera was
positioned behind the officials engaged in counting, with the result that the
entire ballot paper was not visible during the process. The videos further
indicate that not all tables at which the open baskets were kept after counting
of first-preference votes were within the field of view of the CCTV cameras
installed in the Counting Hall.
147. Although adequate arrangements were made during the counting
process, upon consideration of the Petitioners’ grievance and the videos
shown during the hearing, we find that there remains scope for improvement
in the recording of the entire counting process.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 81 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
148. The HPESC, in the Impugned Order, has already directed that
effective arrangements be made for the live display of the counting process
and such display must not be a mere formality, but it must ensure that the
counting of votes is shown live and that the ballot papers are clearly visible.
149. Accordingly, we are of the view that a high-resolution camera should
be placed above the counting table so as to ensure that each ballot paper is
captured in full and with clarity, and that all preferences are visible to the
th
candidates and their authorised representatives present on the 6 Floor of S-
Block, High Court of Delhi, as well as on the YouTube channel on which
the counting process is live-streamed and High Loop App, as previously.
150. We further direct that, if the existing CCTV cameras do not capture
each counting table, the Election Committee and the RO shall make
arrangements for installation of additional CCTV cameras so that every
counting table and every box containing ballot papers is clearly visible.
151. We also direct that all ballot papers presently kept in open baskets,
whether in cloth bags or otherwise, shall be transferred to lockable boxes or
bags prior to recommencement of counting to prevent any further tampering.
The lockable boxes or bags shall remain locked during every break and at
the close of each counting day.
CONCLUSION:
152. In view of the foregoing analysis, we find no merit in any prayer
sought in W.P.(C) Nos. 7531/2026, 7532/2026, 7533/2026 and 7972/2026
and we reiterate the directions in Impugned Order with the below additional
directions to alleviate any apprehension in mind of any one and to ensure the
transparency, purity, and sanctity of the BCD Election process:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 82 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
i. The counting of the votes for BCD Election shall recommence from
the stage it has stopped pursuant to the interim order passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court on 18.05.2026.
ii. Before the counting recommences, all ballot papers presently kept in
open baskets, whether in cloth bags or otherwise, shall be transferred
to lockable boxes or bags. Such boxes or bags shall remain locked
during every break and at the close of each counting day.
iii. A high-resolution camera shall be placed above / top of the counting
table to ensure that each ballot paper is captured in full and with
clarity. The entire counting process shall be continuously
videographed without interruption and live-streamed in real time to all
contesting candidates and their authorised representatives at the
th
display provided on 6 Floor of S-Block, High Court of Delhi and
through YouTube and the High Loop App, as previously.
iv. The Election Committee and Returning Officer shall examine the
th
CCTV camera system installed at 7 Floor of S-Block, High Court of
Delhi to ensure that all cameras shall continuously capture all
counting tables and all persons stationed thereat and shall be
positioned so that no material stage of handling, scrutiny, or
movement of ballot papers falls outside their field of view.
v. The Returning Officer shall ensure that no counting staff for the next
stage of counting is engaged through Mr. Prabodh Kumar. Entire
counting staff shall be engaged only after proper verification, issuance
of photo-identity cards, and submission of an undertaking confirming
that no conflict of interest exists with any contesting candidate.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 83 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
vi. Counting shall recommence as soon as the CCTV and Hi-resolution
cameras, lockable boxes, and counting staff are in place and shall be
endeavored to be completed expeditiously. The Returning Officer
shall notify the date and time of recommencement of counting at least
24 hours in advance. A complete digital recording of the counting
process shall be preserved in its original form on a backup storage
device, and shall not be overwritten, altered, or destroyed until expiry
of the limitation period for filing an election petition before the
Election Tribunal. If any Election Petition(s) are filed, such
preservation shall continue subject to the directions of the Election
Tribunal.
vii. Any ballot paper bearing erasures, overwriting, corrections, additions,
or other suspicious variations shall be segregated and kept in sealed
bundles or packets marked as “doubtful ballots”. Such doubtful
ballots, including the 27 ballot papers that have already been
identified as manipulated, shall be placed before the learned
Additional Solicitor General to determine how they are to be counted
and record brief reasons for each decision. The decision of the learned
Additional Solicitor General shall be final, and the preferences shall
be allocated accordingly. The doubtful ballots and the recorded
reasons shall be preserved separately.
viii. The Counting Hall and all areas connected with the custody or
handling of ballot papers shall remain under continuous CCTV
surveillance, and entry thereto shall be regulated strictly through
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 84 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50
identity cards. A complete digital and physical log of every entry and
exit shall be maintained and preserved as part of the election record.
ix. If any Petitioner or their authorized representative obstructs the
counting process, misbehaves with any member of the Election
Committee or Special Committee, the Returning Officer, the
Observer, or any counting staff, restricts access to S-Block of the
th
High Court of Delhi, or enters the 7 Floor of S-Block without
authority, the Election Committee shall take appropriate steps in
accordance with law.
x. All rights and contentions of the Petitioners are reserved. They shall
remain at liberty to pursue the same by way of Election Petition(s)
before the Election Tribunal upon conclusion of the BCD Election, if
so advised. We clarify that the observations contained herein are
prima facie in nature and shall not be construed as a final expression
on the merits of the case. Any Election Petition(s), if filed, shall be
decided independently by the Election Tribunal, uninfluenced by the
observations hereinabove.
153. Accordingly, W.P.(C) Nos. 7531/2026, 7532/2026, 7533/2026 and
7972/2026 along with all pending Application(s), if any, stand disposed of
with the aforesaid directions.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J TEJAS KARIA, J
JUNE 06, 2026
HK/N/HR/sms/ap/gsr
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) No.7531/2026 & Connected Matters Page 85 of 85
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.06.2026
14:43:50