Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Monday orally observed that there appeared to be “no hanky-panky” in the conduct of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections for the post of President and that the discrepancy in vote count seemed to be a bona fide error.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan was hearing applications challenging the SCBA election results. Senior Advocates Dr Adish Aggarwala and Pradeep Rai, who lost the elections to the President post to Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, had filed applications questioning the results.

In view of the complaints, the SCBA election committee had decided to recount the votes. The bench noted during the hearing that after the recount, 75 votes were found to be less than the original count, however, this did not materially affect the final results.

Justice Kant said, “It does not seem to be a case of hanky-panky, just a bona fide error."

The bench also took on record an unconditional apology by Senior Advocate Dr Adish Aggarwala, after rebuking him for making baseless allegations against the Election Committee appointed to oversee the elections.

Justice Kant initially dictated an order observing that the complaint of Aggarwala contained baseless and scandalous allegations and issued a warning to the Bar against making such statements.

He rebuked Aggarwala, saying, “You don't understand!? Such a seasoned person!” The Court gave him an opportunity to withdraw the allegations, which he did. Thereafter, order was modified to record that Dr Aggarwala had unconditionally withdrawn his undesirable comments, and in that view, no further directions were issued.

The Court also requested the Election Committee to hold a recount for the nine Junior Executive Member posts to address concerns of aggrieved members.

“As regard to election of 9 Junior Executive Members, we have impressed upon EC to hold recount to satisfy some aggrieved members. Since some members of EC are not available during the Partial Working Days, we have requested them to undertake the exercise immediately after the courts open and all of them are available. The Supreme Court to provide adequate staff for recounting. Recounting shall be done in presence of candidates/nominees. However, they shall not interrupt.”

The Court was hearing the matter Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, which pertains to reforms in the SCBA. The recently concluded elections of SCBA courted controversy when some complaints were filed by members of the Association alleging irregularities in the manner of the elections' conduct. These included allegations of bogus voting and bias on the part of members of the Election Committee constituted by the Court.

During the hearing, Dr Aggarwala alleged irregularities and sought that questions be put to the Election Committee in chamber. However, Justice Kant said the hearing should take place in open court for transparency and cautioned Aggarwala, “You have been ex-President...we don't expect you to make sweeping, avoidable kind of allegations. Even if there is dissent, you must remain respectful.”

Aggarwala submitted that he had written a letter alleging that Vikas Singh had solicited votes even after the debate had ended. He also questioned the neutrality of the Election Committee. A complaint had also been filed against Aggarwala himself, alleging that gifts were distributed to influence voters.

Justice Kant responded that the Court was only concerned with transparency and fairness, and noted that the Committee had not been expected to act on every issue raised.

Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai, who was the runner-up in the election, said that during the recount held on Sunday, the number of votes counted for the President post was 2580, whereas the declared result on May 20 had recorded 2651 votes. He submitted that each vote had been shown on camera and counted.

Rai further stated that 2593 ballots were issued, and questioned how the final count could be 2651. He also mentioned that one voter, Chandan Kumar, had approached him claiming his vote had already been cast when he arrived to vote. However, it was clarified during the hearing that there were two voters with the name Chandan Kumar. Rai insisted he was not making allegations against the Election Committee but suggested a re-election as a solution. “There can't be any doubt on dignity of EC members,” he said.

Justice Kant responded, “They acted bonafide. You've been very graceful. What you said makes sense.” He reiterated that the Committee's conduct showed no indication of malpractice.

Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, a member of the Election Committee, objected to being branded as part of Vikas Singh's team, saying “To brand us as cricket team of Vikas Singh, that hurts.” Justice Kant replied, “Never take Dr Aggarwala seriously.”

Justice Viswanathan asked whether any ballots for the President's post were found in boxes of Executive Member votes. Hansaria said only one was found and explained that the Committee had itself decided to conduct the recount. He said that no representations had been made regarding the elections for Vice President, Secretary, Joint Secretary, and Treasurer.

Hansaria informed the Court that 19 representations had been received, including one against Aggarwala alleging that gifts had been distributed to influence voters. He admitted a bona fide calculation error had occurred but said it did not impact the result.

He also stated that a letter had been sent to the SHO, and that police officials might arrive, to which Justice Kant said such action was “absolutely unwarranted.” Justice Viswanathan said, “We have known you (and other EC members) for years. When have you been afraid of an SHO?”

Justice Kant told Aggarwala that such conduct would deter others from taking on the role of election oversight. “If you start threatening/brow-beating like this, who will accept this role?” he said, adding, “It does not seem to be a case of hanky-panky.”

Rai raised a concern that candidates did not get equal opportunity, alleging that the opposing candidate had continued sending emails. Justice Viswanathan said, “You don't get extra votes because of emails. They are the most irritating aspect.”

Justice Kant stated that a robust system was needed and appreciated the Election Committee. “They have acted like an independent tribunal would act,” he observed. He said the Court wanted recounting for Executive Member posts as well, adding, “All of them are young members, we don't want to demoralize them.”

Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani submitted that only 14 complaints were received. Hansaria said recounting for the Executive Members would require three full days and suggested that it be done by an independent agency. He told the Court that his team had not slept in days, had faced abuse, and had been badly affected.

Justice Kant assured that the Supreme Court would provide staff for the recount.

Background

On May 22, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan said that any member of the Bar who has a grievance regarding irregularities in the SCBA elections can approach the Court with proper material. While ordering preservation of the relevant CCTV footage, it also expressed that the Court would examine any allegation of gross illegality, including impersonation of voters, if substantiated with evidence.

The next day, the Court indicated that it would set aside the elections if satisfied that the allegations have merit. Yesterday, the Court was told that allegations regarding discrepancy between the total number of votes recorded for the post of President and the number of ballots issued were found to have weight. As such, the Election Committee was going to carry out recounting of the votes. The Court, on its part, said that recounting be done for the post of President as well as Executive Members.

Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023