Advocate May Be Member Of Several Bar Associations, But Can Only Vote Once: Calcutta HC Flags Duplicate Entries In Bar Council Election List
“An advocate may be a member of several Bar Associations, but can cast only one vote. The admitted irregularity of duplicate and cross-district voter entries is unthinkable and strikes at the foundation of a free, fair, transparent election,” the Calcutta High Court held while intervening in the final electoral roll for the Jalpaiguri Bar Association booth in the 12th West Bengal Bar...
“An advocate may be a member of several Bar Associations, but can cast only one vote. The admitted irregularity of duplicate and cross-district voter entries is unthinkable and strikes at the foundation of a free, fair, transparent election,” the Calcutta High Court held while intervening in the final electoral roll for the Jalpaiguri Bar Association booth in the 12th West Bengal Bar Council election.
Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul), sitting at the Jalaiguri circuit bench, observed that the inclusion of advocates from Bar Associations in Murshidabad and Siliguri within the Jalpaiguri booth list, along with the presence of duplicate entries, amounted to a direct threat to the fairness and transparency of the election. The Court emphasised that, although an advocate may be a member of several Bar Associations, he or she can cast only one vote. The presence of duplicate and cross-district entries, therefore, created a possibility of multiple voting, which the Court described as “unthinkable” in any regulated electoral exercise.
The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate Soumya Majumder, argued that the defects were not mere individual grievances but systemic failures affecting the entire electoral process. According to him, multiple entries allowed the same person to vote more than once, fundamentally undermining the legitimacy of the Bar Council election. The Court accepted this line of argument, holding that the bar on interfering with individual grievances—laid down in M. Varadhan—had no application in a situation where the very foundation of a free and fair election stood compromised.
On the other hand, the Bar Council and the High-Powered Election Committee admitted the presence of errors but claimed that these could not be corrected at the current stage without disrupting the election, scheduled to be held on 9 and 10 March 2026. They also contended that names could not be removed without the consent of the concerned advocates. The Court rejected this reasoning outright, holding that the requirement of “consent” before deleting wrongful entries was a gross irregularity and that administrative convenience could never justify retaining proven illegalities in the voter list.
In its analysis, the Court referred to the Bar Council of India Certificate of Practice Rules, 2015, noting that an advocate ordinarily registers one place of practice and is permitted to vote only once. It highlighted that maintaining duplicate entries contradicted both the letter and the spirit of the Rules. The Court also drew strength from the Supreme Court's decision in UT of Ladakh v. J&K National Conference (2024), reiterating that High Courts are duty-bound to intervene where a level playing field in an election is threatened by unjust executive action or inaction.
Ultimately, while declining to stall or postpone the election itself, the Court issued a crucial direction mandating that no voter be allowed to cast more than one vote under any circumstances. Authorities conducting the poll were instructed to strictly enforce this requirement to safeguard the integrity of the election. The Court recorded that the irregularities in the Jalpaiguri booth list had been admitted by the respondents, and such lapses could not be condoned or ignored on the ground of lack of time or logistical difficulty.
Case: Gautam Das Vs. The High Powered Election Committee, 12th Bar Council of West Bengal Election, 2026 & Ors.
Case No: WPA 334 of 2026