NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday questioned the feasibility of judicial intervention in disputes arising from recently concluded bar association elections at Patiala House Court, Saket Court, and Rouse Avenue Court.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard three petitions concerning alleged irregularities in the elections. The matters were urgently mentioned before the court, prompting a discussion on the scope of legal recourse once election results are declared.
In the case of the Patiala House Court bar elections, the petitioner’s counsel highlighted discrepancies in the voting process. It was alleged that the number of votes cast did not match the number of eligible voters.
The elections were conducted using proximity cards, but the petitioner contended that the results did not align with the expected voting data. Despite raising concerns with the election officer, no corrective action was taken, leading to the legal challenge.
However, upon being informed that the election results had already been declared on Sunday, Chief Justice Upadhyaya questioned the court’s ability to intervene at this stage.
“What intervention is legally permissible after results have been declared? The established legal principle is that once an election process begins and results are declared, judicial interference is limited,” observed the Chief Justice.
He further pointed out that bar association elections fall under the Societies Registration Act, which provides a separate mechanism for dispute resolution.
“You are a civil body governed by the Societies Registration Act. If there are grievances, the legal or statutory remedy must be pursued. This is an internal matter, so why should the court be burdened with such disputes?” he remarked.
Following deliberations, the court allowed the matter to be listed on Monday itself. The case was subsequently taken up by Justice Mini Pushkarna, who directed that status quo be maintained until the next hearing on Tuesday morning.
Meanwhile, during the post-lunch session, two additional petitions related to bar elections were permitted for listing. One petition pertained to the Saket Court bar elections, which were allegedly marred by mismanagement. A candidate for the Secretary’s post urged the court to appoint a retired High Court judge as an observer to oversee fresh elections.
Chief Justice Upadhyaya, however, dismissed the plea for immediate intervention, stating, “An observer is required only after an election programme is declared.” The court scheduled the matter for hearing on Wednesday.
The third petition concerned the Rouse Avenue Court bar elections, where counting was still underway despite partial results being declared the previous night. This matter is set to be heard on Tuesday.