Election recount order set aside for breach of natural justice and remanded for fresh hearing.

The petitioner, a practising advocate, contested the election for President of the District Advocates Association, Sagar. Although 1,350 votes were stated to have been cast, 1,355 ballot papers were allegedly found during counting.

The Returning Officer initially decided to conduct a recount, but subsequently recalled that decision after a group of persons entered the Returning Officer’s office and allegedly acted under duress or intimidation.

Respondent No. 3 challenged the decision before the Special Committee (Appeals) of the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh. The Special Committee directed recounting by order dated 25 August 2026 in Appeal No. 8/2026, without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

The petitioner therefore invoked Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the order, protection of the election result declaring him elected with 573 votes, and restraint against recounting.

Whether the order dated 25 August 2026 directing recounting of votes could be sustained when the petitioner, whose election was directly affected, was not afforded an opportunity of hearing.

Whether the matter should be remanded to the Special Committee for reconsideration after hearing the petitioner and other concerned parties.

Whether the State Bar Council possessed authority to interfere with the election procedure of a District Bar Association under the applicable model bylaws; this issue was raised by the petitioner but was not finally adjudicated.

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule, which requires that a person whose rights or legal interests are directly affected by an order must receive a meaningful opportunity of hearing before the order is passed.

The Court also required the Special Committee to pass a reasoned order after considering the parties’ pleadings, arguments and relevant evidence.

The parties relied on the model bylaws issued by the State Bar Council, but the Court did not finally determine their interpretation or the extent of the State Bar Council’s jurisdiction.

The recounting order directly affected the petitioner’s declared election victory and was therefore incapable of being sustained without notice and an opportunity of hearing to him.

Since the Special Committee passed the impugned order behind the petitioner’s back, the order suffered from a violation of natural justice.

Rather than deciding the disputed election issues or the State Bar Council’s jurisdiction in the first instance, the Court set aside the order and remitted the matter to the Special Committee so that all concerned parties could present their pleadings and arguments and the Committee could make a reasoned determination.

The Court preserved the election material and suspended declaration of the result pending that decision.

The petitioner, Respondents Nos. 3 and 4, and other concerned parties were permitted to appear before the Special Committee, which was directed to hear them and pass a reasoned order after reconsideration, preferably within 15 days.

Until the issue was decided, the election result was not to be declared.

The ballot papers and other election material were directed to be secured in the custody of the Returning Officer.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.