Karnataka State Bar Council Election Result Subject To Outcome Of Pleas Alleging Malpractices: High Court

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (June 10) directed that the declaration of results of the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) Elections 2026 shall remain subject to the outcome of pending petitions by contesting candidates alleging malpractices including cash bribes, pre-marked ballot papers, and bogus voting.

Listing the matter on Friday, the court said in its order that in case the counting of votes is completed the results shall remain subject to the petitions. 

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj in his order directed Election Officer, Chairman of High Powered Election Committee and Bar Council of India to file their stand in the matter.

It emphasized that response of BCI assumes particular significance, "having regard to the fact that the issues raised in the present proceedings concern the conduct of elections to a statutory body governing the legal profession and directly impinge upon the integrity of the institutional framework established for the regulation of advocates".

"The Bar Council of India shall specifically indicate the hierarchy of authorities involved, the respective functions of the Returning Officer, Observer, Central Election Tribunal/Committee and any other authority concerned, the procedure to be followed at each stage, and the time frame within which action is required to be taken on complaints received during the electoral process. Such information would assist the Court in determining whether the statutory framework has been adhered to in the present case and whether any further directions are warranted.
At the request of all counsels, relist on 12.06.2026 at 2.30 pm. In the unlikely event of the counting being completed, the results shall be subject to the result of the above petitions"

In its order the court observed that in the present case there were as many as sixteen complaints received by the Returning Officer. Referring to mandate of Rule 7(Procedure regarding complaint/disputes) of BCI notification, the court said that the receipt of such complaints necessarily attracted the obligation to place the same before the Central Election Tribunal/Committee for its consideration.

"Whether the allegations contained in the complaints were ultimately sustainable or otherwise is a matter falling within the exclusive domain of the Central Election Tribunal/Committee. What assumes significance is that the Rule envisages that such complaints should be subjected to scrutiny by the competent forum designated under the Bar Council of India Notification and not be dealt with in a manner inconsistent with the procedure prescribed therein.
Prima facie, therefore, compliance with the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 assumes considerable importance, particularly in a case where multiple complaints relating to the conduct of the election were admittedly received. Since the Rule constitutes a self-contained mechanism for the examination and adjudication of election-related complaints, adherence thereto is essential for preserving the integrity of the electoral process and ensuring that all stakeholders have confidence in the fairness and legality of the election," the court said. 

The court said that Elections to the State Bar Council are not elections to a single office or post but are elections to a representative body comprising multiple members. It said that in such a system, every preference expressed by a voter assumes significance, and the exclusion of a candidate at any stage may materially affect the electoral prospects of all remaining candidates.

It is therefore evident that a decision under Rule 7 is capable of producing consequences extending far beyond the individual candidate against whom the complaint is made. The cancellation of a candidature may alter the entire matrix of vote distribution and preference transfers and thereby impact the electoral prospects of several other candidates.

It thus said that Rule 7 entrusts the decision-making function to the Central Election Tribunal/Committee, incorporates the requirements of natural justice, and mandates the recording of reasons. Due to far-reaching ramifications that may flow from the cancellation of a candidature, the strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 assumes critical importance and cannot be treated as a mere procedural formality, the court said. 

The court said that there was no material placed before the court indicating that the Central Election Tribunal/Committee has considered the complaints or taken any decision thereon.

"In the absence of such material, this Court is unable, at this stage, to ascertain whether the procedure prescribed under Rule 7 has been duly complied with" the court said.

The high court also referred to Bar Council of Delhi elections where complaints concerning the electoral process were raised. The Supreme Court had in May stayed further counting of votes in the Bar Council of Delhi elections after allegations of serious irregularities, including claims that tampered ballot papers were being counted. The apex court had transferred the petitions concerning the Bar Council of Delhi elections to the Delhi High Court and requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to constitute a special bench within this week to hear the matter. 

Notably, the Delhi High Court had later earlier this month after hearing the matters, refused to order a fresh election to the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD), holding that the discovery of tampered ballot papers during counting did not vitiate the entire electoral process and therefore did not warrant a re-poll.

The high court thus said:

"The aforesaid course of action underscores the importance of ensuring that complaints affecting the integrity of the electoral process are examined and adjudicated before the election results attain finality. Having regard to the serious nature of the allegations raised in the present petitions, the receipt of multiple complaints as reflected in Annexure–L, and the apparent absence of material demonstrating compliance with Rule 7, this Court is of the prima facie view that appropriate interim measures may be required to safeguard the sanctity of the electoral process and preserve the rights and contentions of all concerned parties". 

However, the court said , before it passes any such Interim Order, in the interests of fairness while affording a further opportunity to the Returning Officer and the concerned authorities, the court asked them to place on record the steps taken pursuant to the complaints received. The court said that authorities shall indicate whether complaints were forwarded to the Central Election Tribunal/Committee, and the action, if any, taken by the Central Election Tribunal/Committee thereon. 

The Bench was hearing two writ petitions filed by contesting candidates, Smt. Sandhya U and Smt. Hema Kariyappa Gowda, appearing in person, alleging serious violations of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Code of Conduct during the elections held on March 11, 2026, for electing 23 members out of 149 candidates across the state.

On June 1 the high court had refused to stay the declaration of results.

Sandhya U, an advocate and contesting candidate who appeared in person, had sought a direction for production of CCTV footage and soft copies of ballot papers. She alleged serious violations of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Code of Conduct, during the elections held on March 11, 2026, for electing 23 members out of 149 candidates across the state.

Similarly, Hema Kariyappa Gowda, another contesting candidate claimed that several candidates distributed cash bribes, gifts, and hosted unofficial parties to influence voters. She had also claimed that cash was being distributed in polling booths itself.

The two candidates had also sought an interim prayer to stay the declaration of results.

Case Title: Smt Sandhya U v. Returning Officer & Ors. and Hema Kariyappa Gowda v. The Chairman, HPEC & Ors.


Case No.: WP 15832/2026 & WP 15252/2026

Click Here To Read/Download Order