Election process once commenced cannot be interdicted unless grave irregularities vitiate the entire electoral outcome.

The Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) conducted elections for 23 posts in February 2026 under a preferential voting system.

During the elimination-based counting stage on 15.04.2026, a member of the counting staff (Mr. Nikhil Kumar) was caught manipulating voter preferences on 18 ballot papers to benefit a candidate who was his relative.

An FIR was registered, and counting was halted.

The High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee (HPESC), appointed by the Supreme Court, rejected the petitioners' demand for a re-poll, instead directing that counting resume from the elimination stage after re-checking affected tables.

Petitioners approached the Supreme Court, which transferred the matters to the Delhi High Court for final adjudication while staying the counting process.

Article 226 of the Constitution regarding writ jurisdiction, noting that while power is broad, it is sparingly used to interdict ongoing elections.

The doctrine that "election" encompasses the entire process from notification to declaration and should not be stalled by courts, as established in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer [1952] and Mohinder Singh Gill v. CEC [1978].

Rules 23(2) and 23(3) of the BCD Rules, 1963, which dictate that defaced or altered ballot papers are to be decided upon by the Additional Solicitor General.

The Bar Council of India Guidelines (2026), which provide for the segregation and recording of "doubtful" ballots.

The Court held the petitions maintainable because they were transferred by the Supreme Court specifically for adjudication on merits.

The Court found that the tampering was detected at the elimination stage, and first-preference counting had been conducted under high transparency (CCTV and live-streaming).

The Court reasoned that a re-poll is an extreme remedy; the integrity of the process could be preserved by applying BCD Rule 23, where the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) acts as a final arbiter for "doubtful" or tampered ballots.

Since the identity of the beneficiary and the method of tampering (changing '2' to '12') were known, forensic re-evaluation of the 27 identified ballots by the ASG would suffice to honor voter intent without scrapping the entire election.

The Court dismissed concerns about the 79 suspended candidates, noting the Election Committee had the authority to revoke suspensions upon receiving explanations.

The Court dismissed the prayers for a re-poll and upheld the HPESC’s order to resume counting.

Directions: (1) Counting must recommence from the stage it stopped; (2) 27 manipulated ballots plus any other "doubtful" ballots must be placed before the ASG for a final decision on how they are counted; (3) High-resolution overhead cameras must be installed for transparent live-streaming; (4) No staff from the previous outsourced agency shall be used; (5) Petitioners retain the right to file an Election Petition after the declaration of results.