The Supreme Court, on Monday, observed that the recent elections of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) for the post of President did not involve any foul play. The Court clarified that the differences in vote counts were due to a genuine counting mistake.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan was hearing challenges to the SCBA election results. Senior Advocates Dr. Adish Aggarwala and Pradeep Rai, who lost to Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, had filed petitions questioning the outcome.
Read also: SC Collegium Recommends New Chief Justices for Five High Courts
In response to the complaints, the SCBA Election Committee decided to recount the votes. During the hearing, it was noted that after the recount, 75 votes were found missing compared to the original count. However, this shortfall did not change the final result.
Justice Kant stated, "It does not seem to be a case of hanky-panky, just a bona fide error."
Dr. Aggarwala offered an unconditional apology to the Court after he was rebuked for making baseless accusations against the Election Committee. Initially, the Court recorded his complaint as containing scandalous allegations but later accepted his apology and modified the order.
Justice Kant said, “You don’t understand!? Such a seasoned person!”
The Court also instructed the Election Committee to conduct a recount of votes for the nine Junior Executive Member positions.
“Regarding the election of 9 Junior Executive Members, we have asked the Election Committee to hold a recount to satisfy some aggrieved members,” the Court noted.
Read also: Centre Appoints 7 Advocates as High Court Judges Across India
The case, Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, involves reforms in the SCBA. Complaints were raised about alleged irregularities, including bogus voting and bias by the Election Committee.
Dr. Aggarwala argued that Senior Advocate Vikas Singh solicited votes after the debate concluded and questioned the neutrality of the Election Committee. There were also claims of gifts being distributed to influence votes. However, the Court stressed the need for transparency and fairness.
Senior Advocate Pradeep Rai mentioned that during the recount, the total count for the President’s post was 2580, compared to the originally declared result of 2651 votes. He said each vote was counted and recorded on camera. Rai noted that 2593 ballots were issued and questioned how the final count could be higher.
He also raised concerns about a voter named Chandan Kumar, claiming his vote had been cast before he arrived. It was clarified that there were two voters with that name. Rai maintained he was not accusing the Election Committee but suggested a re-election.
Read also: SC Collegium Recommends Three High Court Judges for Supreme Court Elevation
Justice Kant responded, “They acted bona fide. You’ve been very graceful. What you said makes sense.”
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, a member of the Election Committee, denied bias and explained that only one misplaced vote was found during recounting. He clarified no objections were raised regarding elections for Vice President, Secretary, Joint Secretary, and Treasurer.
Hansaria mentioned receiving 19 complaints, including one against Aggarwala, and confirmed a counting error that did not affect the result. He also noted that complaints had been filed with the police, which the Court deemed unnecessary.
Justice Kant said, “If you start threatening or brow-beating like this, who will accept this role?”
Rai expressed concerns about candidates not getting equal opportunity, alleging the other candidate sent emails after the debate ended.
Justice Viswanathan responded, “You don’t get extra votes because of emails. They are the most irritating aspect.”
The Court praised the Election Committee for their efforts, with Justice Kant remarking that the Committee acted like an independent tribunal. He also supported a recount for the Executive Member posts.
Hansaria informed the Court that recounting for Executive Members would take three days and suggested involving an independent agency. He shared that his team had worked tirelessly and faced abuse.
The Supreme Court assured that sufficient staff would be provided for recounting.
Background:
On May 22, the Court stated that any Bar member with evidence of irregularities could approach the Court. It ordered the preservation of CCTV footage and promised to examine any claims of impersonation or illegalities. The following day, the Court said it might set aside the elections if substantial evidence emerged. A recount was ordered for both the President and Executive Member posts after concerns were raised about vote count discrepancies.
Case Title: Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik, Diary No. 13992/2023
