Supreme Court Today (May 26) directs a full vote recount in SCBA polls after candidates allege multiple voting and irregularities. Justice Surya Kant warns, “Enough is enough, go and recount.”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India is currently hearing a matter related to the recent elections of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA). The case involves election reforms and irregularities claimed during the voting process.
The case is being looked into by a Special Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta.
During the hearing, Advocate Pradeep Rai—who was also one of the candidates in the SCBA elections—raised serious concerns over the counting of votes and fairness in the election process.
He stated before the court:
“I was a contesting for the member executive, my valid number was 28. Initially I was declared elected winner subsequently on the oral request made by one of the candidates. I was declared that I’m in the seventh position. Many members have casted vote 3-4 times.”
This statement brought the issue of multiple voting and vote tampering into light, raising serious concerns about transparency and fairness.
Justice Surya Kant responded by informing everyone about the latest update he had received regarding the matter.
He said:
“Yesterday I got a call and I’m told that the election committee has decided to recount the words. Yes. In presence of all the candidates, also in presence of a representative of the registry.”
Justice Surya Kant also assured the parties that the Court is open to ensuring a fair and transparent process, and if anything more is needed, the Court is willing to take further steps.
He said:
“if you want something to be added, something more to be done, we will do that.”
He further made it clear that the process is still ongoing and nothing has been given final approval yet.
He stated:
“Recount is in presence of all of you, you see today’s development. Yes, nothing is going to be finally closed. We are not putting a seal of approval to anything.”
He made it clear that until the recount is completed, the Court will not proceed further on the matter.
“Please go and do recount until that is done, we won’t hear anything.”
However, lawyer Adhish Agarwalla, appearing for another party, raised a strong objection, stating that recounting would not fix the issue.
He said,
“Mylord recount will not do anything. When wrong votes are polled mylord.”
This led to a strong reaction from Justice Surya Kant, who firmly replied,
“Enough is enough. Go and recount. Baat ko khatam karo.”
The Election Committee (EC), present during the hearing, informed the Court that they would begin with the president’s vote recount.
“We will start with re-counting of president votes mylord.”
Justice Surya Kant agreed with this step, saying,
“Let’s see for the president, if that has some finding we will order repoll for other posts as well.”
The EC also mentioned that serious accusations had been made against them by Mr. Agarwalla.
“Mylord Mr. Adhish Agarwalla has said many accusations on us.”
Responding to this, Justice Surya Kant observed that such behavior could be expected from losing candidates.
“A defeating candidate says so many things out of frustration also.”
Justice Surya Kant then issued directions regarding the process:
“While president recount report is sent, executive member recount will simultaneously go on. This is the order for today.”
One of the lawyers requested a full recount for all positions.
“Mylord kindly do for all posts recount.”
However, Justice Surya Kant refused and explained the plan going forward.
“That is not possible. First come with the recount report of President and few executive members as added.”
In the final moments of the hearing, when the courtroom got chaotic, Justice Surya Kant expressed his frustration with the conduct of the lawyers.
“Stop shouting. You all don’t want us to do any judicial work. Please leave my court.”
This matter is important as it directly affects the transparency and fairness of internal elections in one of the most prestigious legal bodies in the country.
The Supreme Court’s intervention in ensuring a fair process reflects the seriousness with which allegations of election malpractice are being handled.
EARLIER IN APEX COURT
The Supreme Court on May 23 indicated that it may cancel the 2025 Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections if it finds the allegations of irregularities to be true.
The case was raised before a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh by Senior Advocate Dr. Adish Aggarwala.
Aggarwala, a former SCBA President and a candidate in the recent elections, mentioned the matter in connection with the ongoing SCBA v. B.D. Kaushik case, where issues concerning reforms in the SCBA are already under scrutiny by Justices Kant and K.V. Viswanathan.
“If we are satisfied, we will set aside the election,”
– Justice Surya Kant
Justice Kant advised Aggarwala to wait for the composition of the Special Bench that includes Justice Viswanathan.
He added,
“Wait for special bench… find out when J. Viswanathan is sitting, I will sit in that week. There is no question of listing today. Heavens won’t fall.”
On the previous day, the same bench had stated that any member of the Bar with complaints regarding election irregularities could approach the Court, provided they submit valid evidence.
The Court also directed preservation of CCTV footage related to the election and said it would examine serious allegations like voter impersonation, if proven.
Aggarwala’s application pointed to a significant mismatch in vote numbers. He claimed that although only 2,588 voting slips were issued, the total votes (including invalid ones) tallied up to 2,651 — indicating an excess of 200 votes.
“This clearly indicates that 200 excess votes were found in the ballot boxes as compared to the 2588 slips issued to voters,”
– From Aggarwala’s plea
He alleged not just discrepancies but “fraudulent acts” by certain candidates. One of the major concerns raised was about Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani, a member of the Election Committee, who allegedly supported and campaigned for President-elect Senior Advocate Vikas Singh.
According to the plea, she had openly told voters:
“This is the fourth and last term of Mr. Vikas Singh, so vote for him. Next time, I will contest for the post of President and Mr. Vikas Singh will support me.”
Aggarwala also accused the Election Committee of announcing the results in collaboration with Vikas Singh and former SCBA President Kapil Sibal, despite many votes allegedly being left uncounted.
Another serious charge was about a letter from Vikas Singh sent to voters on the evening of May 19 and 20, 2025, asking for votes, which allegedly violated the model code of conduct.
Aggarwala claimed that even after a complaint was lodged, the Election Committee took no action.
His application seeks:
- Cancellation of the election result for the President’s post
- A judicial inquiry by a Court-appointed committee
- Preservation of all election-related material
The application was drawn by Advocates Vipin Kumar Bharti, Suraj Pathak, and Ritesh Singh, and filed through AoR Kuldeep Jauhari.
Another plea was filed by two additional SCBA members who argued that the Election Committee did not follow the Court’s guidelines.
They claimed that:
- The voters’ list was still being updated even after the nomination deadline.
- A new list was not prepared based on 60 proximity card entries for 2024.
- The 2023 list, which included 500 new voters based on only 30 entries, was not verified for 2024.
They further alleged that bogus votes were cast and non-advocates were involved in the election process. According to them, the Committee failed to allow verification of voters and did not publish a voter list with photographs, making identity checks impossible.
Their demands include:
- Setting aside the SCBA elections
- Holding fresh elections
- Creating a new committee including the Court Registrar and an independent member to verify the election process
“The Election Committee deliberately did not publish the voter list with photographs, making it unable for the officers of the election committee to match the voters with the list,”
– From the second application
Case Title:
Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik
Diary No. 13992/2023
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on SCBA Elections
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
