On 9th September, Supreme Court stayed the Delhi High Court’s order mandating simultaneous elections for all Delhi Bar Associations and prohibiting candidates from contesting posts in multiple associations. The order required uniform election timing for two years.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: (On 9th Sept), The Supreme Court of India has stayed the Delhi High Court‘s directive mandating that all Bar Associations in the national capital conduct their Executive Committee elections on the same day. The stay also covers the rule prohibiting candidates from contesting for more than one post simultaneously. The matter will be reviewed further in a full hearing.
Challenge to the ‘One Member One Post’ Rule
The legal dispute has escalated following a petition filed by Advocate DK Sharma, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Bar Council of Delhi, and other Bar members. They raised objections to the enforcement of the “one member one post” rule for the Bar Association elections, which the Delhi High Court had introduced. Their challenge is centered on the argument that the rule restricts the ability of lawyers to participate in multiple Bar Associations and curtails their democratic rights.
The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the order offers temporary relief to those who were affected by the High Court’s decision. The stay halts the implementation of the ruling but does not cancel the scheduled elections.
Background of the High Court’s Order
The controversy began in March 2024 when a full bench of the Delhi High Court, consisting of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan, Justice Rajiv Shakdher, and Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, issued a sweeping directive. The court mandated that all Bar Associations across Delhi, including District Court Bar Associations, the Delhi High Court Bar Association, and Tribunal-linked Bar Associations, hold their Executive Committee elections on the same day.
The bench explained its reasoning behind this directive:
“Conducting elections for all Bar Associations on the same day will prevent interference from members of other Bar Associations and reduce overcrowding caused by supporters of candidates running in multiple associations.”
This directive was issued with the objective of minimizing electoral malpractice, preventing excessive overcrowding during elections, and ensuring the efficient use of judicial resources.
The court also emphasized that having a fixed term of two years for the Executive Committees of all Bar Associations would:
“Allow the Bar Associations to function more effectively for the benefit of their members and provide adequate time to implement various welfare schemes.”
Additionally, the High Court proposed measures to enhance the security and transparency of the election process. It ordered the issuance of ID or Proximity Cards and the introduction of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) technology for all lawyers. The court stressed that these steps were necessary to ensure fairness and address concerns related to security during elections. The court directed the concerned authorities to complete the issuance of ID cards within six months:
“The uniform election for all Bar Associations should be conducted only after issuing proper ID/Proximity Cards and RFID to all lawyers, ensuring that the process is fair and transparent.”
Preventing Electoral Malpractice
To further safeguard the integrity of the elections, the Delhi High Court imposed strict regulations to prevent extravagant campaigning. The court specifically banned candidates from installing hoardings, pasting posters, or hosting parties to gain favor among voters. Moreover, the High Court declared that no member of any Bar Association, including legal bodies such as the Bar Council of Delhi or the Bar Council of India, would be allowed to contest for multiple posts across different associations simultaneously.
This provision of the ruling, known as the “one member one post” rule, drew criticism from several Bar members, who viewed it as an infringement on their right to participate in the democratic process.
Supreme Court Stay Order and Response
On September 9, 2024, the Supreme Court bench, led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, issued a stay on the High Court’s order. The Supreme Court’s stay effectively halts the enforcement of the directive but allows the elections to proceed without adhering to the “one member one post” rule. The bench remarked:
“Until further notice, the High Court’s orders are stayed.”
In its ruling, the Supreme Court clarified that the stay would not prevent the scheduled elections from taking place. It stated:
“It is important to note that the pending appeals do not suspend the elections of any of the bodies.”
This temporary suspension of the High Court’s order gives a reprieve to those who were challenging the uniform election directive. The Bar Associations in Delhi can proceed with their elections without being bound by the “one member one post” rule until the matter is fully resolved by the Supreme Court.
Arguments For and Against the High Court’s Directive
Supporters of the High Court’s decision argue that simultaneous elections would streamline the election process, ensure better compliance with the election rules, and reduce the number of legal disputes that arise from Bar Association elections. The High Court had highlighted that conducting elections on the same day would minimize the risk of members from one Bar Association influencing the outcome of elections in other associations. This, they claimed, would lead to a fairer election process.
Additionally, proponents believe that holding elections on a single day would help prevent overcrowding within court premises, which has often become an issue during election season, with supporters of multiple candidates gathering in large numbers.
On the other hand, critics of the High Court’s ruling, including several prominent Bar Association members, have opposed the “one member one post” rule, arguing that it restricts the ability of legal professionals to participate in the democratic process fully. Many lawyers are involved in multiple Bar Associations, and the restriction on contesting for more than one post limits their scope of participation.