The Supreme Court has requested the Election Tribunal hearing a petition challenging the Karnataka State Bar Council elections to decide the matter expeditiously, clarifying that it may proceed ex parte if the contesting respondents fail to appear.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana passed the directions after hearing a plea by a practising advocate who had contested the Karnataka Bar Council elections and alleged large-scale electoral irregularities, including discrepancies in the votes counted in a particular ballot box and the reported vote count, as well as alleged rigging purportedly captured in CCTV footage.
Advocate Kumud Lata Das appeared for the petitioner and informed the Court that the petitioner wished to argue the matter in person. The petitioner submitted that she had approached various forums, including the High Powered Election Committee, before eventually filing an election petition. The election petition is presently pending before the Election Tribunal.
The petitioner expressed concern over the delay in disposal of the election petition, stating that nearly five months had elapsed and the contesting respondents had not been appearing before the Tribunal. She also pointed out that the relevant election records and evidence, including ballot papers and CCTV footage, were in the custody of authorities in Karnataka.
During the hearing, the CJI referred to the committee already constituted to examine election-related concerns. The petitioner, however, highlighted the need for expeditious adjudication of her pending election petition and sought appropriate directions regarding the preservation and examination of evidence.
Considering the grievances, the Court requested the Election Tribunal to decide the election petition expeditiously and clarified that if the contesting respondents failed to appear, the Tribunal could proceed ex parte and decide the matter in accordance with law.
The Court also granted liberty to the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal through virtual mode. Further, she was permitted to submit a list of persons in whose custody the relevant evidence was lying. The Tribunal may record their statements through virtual mode or require them to appear in person along with the relevant material.