The Supreme Court on Thursday directed that the counting of votes in the Delhi Bar Council election shall continue and be completed, but ordered that the results shall not be declared without its prior permission, as it examined allegations of irregularities in the electoral process.
The matter came up before a Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana. Several candidates and intervenors raised concerns regarding the conduct of the elections, including allegations relating to ballot-paper tampering, unverified voters, suspension and restoration of candidates, and the functioning of election authorities.
During the hearing, the Court indicated that it wished to first assess the impact of the alleged irregularities before taking any drastic step. The Bench observed:
“
“We will allow the counting to take place, but we will not allow them to declare the result. At least we have a fair idea that how the election is, what is the difference coming, what is the likely impact of any irregularity.”
One of the petitioners referred to findings recorded by the High Court regarding large-scale tampering of ballot papers and the role of certain individuals involved in the counting process. It was argued that several facts had remained undisputed, including the registration of an FIR and the removal of members of the counting team. The Bench, however, cautioned against drawing premature conclusions, noting that the alleged involvement of an individual did not automatically establish a larger conspiracy.
“
“Take it from us, we have also read everything. This Nikhil Kumar, as it appeared to be, was planted by a candidate, fortunately caught, lawful action taken. If there is a deficiency in lawful action, we will take that. We are not going to spare anyone…Anything concerning fairness and impartiality of the election process we will examine and we will not spare anyone.”
Complaints were also regarding the newly constituted Election Tribunal, including concerns about its functionality, seat, procedural requirements, and the costs involved in filing election petitions. One candidate argued that the prescribed fees and process charges would effectively deny aggrieved advocates access to remedies.
The Court observed that if the Tribunal was not functional, affected candidates would have a stronger grievance, and assured the parties that all such concerns would be considered. The Bench also expressed appreciation for the efforts undertaken by the High Court in addressing election-related disputes and emphasised that all parties would receive a full and fair hearing before any final decision was taken. Passing its interim directions, the Supreme Court ordered:
“
“Meanwhile, the counting of the votes shall continue and be completed at the earliest. However, the result shall not be notified without prior permission of this Court.”
The matter is scheduled to be taken up again in July.