Supreme Court Today (May 29) heard a complaint by Dr. Mukut Nath Varma on alleged irregularities in SCBA elections. The court ordered him to file an affidavit and appear in person next time.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India heard a serious matter about the alleged unfair practices and problems in the recent elections of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA).
This case came before a bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta, based on a formal complaint made by Dr. Mukut Nath Varma.
Dr. Varma had sent his complaint to the Court on May 26, in which he clearly accused the SCBA of not keeping the election process clean and fair.
He said that the entire voting process was not properly followed and that it looked like the system had been influenced wrongly.
As per his words,
“The election process is completely compromised.”
Dr. Varma was present in the court hearing through video conferencing. He told the Court that he had not come earlier because he was scared.
In his exact words,
“I didn’t come to court earlier because I feared SCBA members might cause harm.”
The bench was not satisfied with his absence in person. They strongly told him that he cannot avoid physical presence. The judges made it very clear that making big allegations without standing by them in court will not be allowed.
They said,
“Come to Court physically. If you don’t, coercive action will follow. You must take responsibility for your statements.”
Hearing these statements and allegations, Justice Surya Kant responded firmly. He told Dr. Varma to file a proper affidavit. That means he must write down and submit his claims under oath with complete responsibility.
The judge said,
“File an affidavit in support of your allegations. We will explain the consequences of making such claims.”
After the discussion, the Court gave the following clear orders:
- If he does not follow the court’s directions, then strict action will be taken against him.
- Dr. Mukut Nath Varma must submit an affidavit officially supporting all the claims he made in his complaint.
- He must be present in court in person during the next hearing.
CASE TITLE:
SCBA vs. BD Kaushik.
PREVIOUSLY IN APEX COURT
The Supreme Court on May 27 directed a fresh recount of votes for the post of Junior Executive Members in the recently held Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections.
This directive came even after one full round of vote recounting had already been conducted for all posts a day earlier, following allegations of bogus voting and irregularities.
A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and KV Viswanathan noted that the election committee had done a “satisfactory job” in recounting the votes but ordered another recount exclusively for the Junior Executive Member category, which includes nine positions.
The purpose of this additional recount, the Court said, was to “eliminate any lingering doubts” and assure all members of a fair process.
“We have impressed upon the election committee to hold a recount to satisfy some of the aggrieved members. Since some of the members are not there during partial working days.. Secretary General is directed to assist the above mentioned recounting. The recounting of the votes of junior executive member shall be done in the presence of candidates or nominees and none shall be allowed to interrupt and if any report is sent to us strong action will be taken,”
-the Court ordered.
Meanwhile, after the first round of recounting, Senior Advocate Vikas Singh was once again declared the winner of the SCBA President post, further increasing his margin of victory. This development put an end to doubts surrounding his election.
However, the Court took strong exception to the conduct of Senior Advocate Dr. Adish C Aggarwala, who had lost the presidential race to Vikas Singh and subsequently accused the election committee of bias. The Bench came down heavily on Aggarwala, terming his accusations “frivolous and scandalous.”
ALSO READ: SCBA Election Reforms || Justice L Nageswara Rao Committee Invites Lawyers’ Inputs
“We advise Bar members to not indulge in such propaganda … which affects the integrity of the institution,”
–the Court noted in its original order.
After facing censure from the judges, Aggarwala chose to withdraw his allegations. The Court acknowledged this and refrained from passing any order on his plea.
“We do not pass any orders in Mr Aggarwala’s plea since he has unconditionally withdrawn his allegations,”
–the modified order recorded.
Justice Surya Kant urged Aggarwala to express his dissent respectfully and avoid sweeping allegations. The Court reiterated that its only objective was to ensure that the election process remains fair and credible.
Another senior advocate, Pradeep Rai, who also contested for the president’s post, voiced concerns about the recount. However, the Court expressed confidence in the election committee’s work.
“Should we not trust them (the election committee members) now? We need a robust system as it is an annual feature to ensure transparency.. It’s a commendable job by the election committee … They worked as our extended hands,”
–Justice Kant said during the hearing.
Election committee member and Senior Advocate Mahalakshmi Pavani informed the Court that only 14 complaints were received regarding the Executive Member elections. Yet, to address even these minor concerns, the Court insisted on one more round of recounting for the Junior Executive Member category.
Another committee member, Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, expressed how mentally exhausting it had been for the team to repeatedly carry out the vote-counting process. Justice Viswanathan empathised with the election committee’s efforts.
“Mr Aggarwala, you have been a voter. You know how the election committee conducts this, in the summer. If you start browbeating them like this or threaten them … we will not tolerate. They are our officers and we will ensure that nothing happens to them,”
–Justice Viswanathan sternly warned.
The SCBA elections took place on May 20. Senior Advocate Vikas Singh was elected as President, defeating both Adish C Aggarwala and Pradeep Kumar Rai. Senior Advocate Rahul Kaushik became Vice-President, while Advocate Pragya Baghel was elected Secretary.
Concerns over vote-count discrepancies and irregularities led to the matter being brought before the Supreme Court. A vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta initially heard the issue on May 26 after candidates alleged that the number of votes counted exceeded the number of ballot slips issued.
The election committee had then proposed a recount, which the Court allowed. It had clarified that no final results would be declared until the Court examined the recount report.
“Let no candidate should have any doubt. Let there be recounting for all elections wherever this is a complaint,”
–the Court had observed.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on SCBA Election Dispute
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
