KSBC Polls: Karnataka High Court Asks State Bar Council To Inform On Total Number Of Malpractice Complaints, Action Taken By Election Panel

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (June 12) asked the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) to submit total number of complaints alleging malpractices during elections to KSBC and the number of such complaints forwarded to High Powered Election Committee (HPEC) as well as the orders passed on such complaints. 

The court further sought information on such complaints where orders are yet to be passed by HPEC, which is part of the grievance redressal mechanism. 

The court was hearing pleas by contesting candidates alleging malpractices including cash bribes, pre-marked ballot papers, and bogus voting.

When the matter was called petitioner candidate Hema Gowda submitted before Justice Suraj Govindaraj, "I filed a complaint about malpractices on the day of the election itself. My request for CCTV footage was rejected too...". 

To this the court orally said, "We are only trying to see if the rules are followed... Our jurisdiction is limited... Apex court has laid down how complaints should be dealt with.. Your grievance was that Returning Officer did not refer your complaint to the HPEC...that has been sorted out as per the AAG...This is a honorary post... Don't know why you are fighting over it so much.. its not an MP/MLA election". 

On June 10, the court also afforded a further opportunity to the Returning Officer and the concerned authorities like High Powered Election Committee, asking them to place on record the steps taken pursuant to the complaints received and the details about the number of such complaints received.

Today, after following upon the queries made by the court last time, based on the submissions made by the State's Bar Council, High Powered Election Committee and the Returning Officer, the court recorded their submissions as follows in the order:

“…In the present matter, complaints were filed by the candidates to the Returning Officer (RO), RO has forwarded it to HPEC as submitted by Senior Counsel K N Phaneendra appearing for the Bar Council of Karnataka. AAG Kiran V Ron submits that many of those complaints have already been considered by HPEC and orders were passed after hearing the concerned candidates.
In that view of the matter, the Bar Council's (KSBC) counsel is asked to place of record the total number of complaints and the number of such complaints forwarded to HPEC. AAG is required to place on record orders passed on each complaint and matters wherein orders are yet to be passed. In respect of complaints made by the petitioners, copies of orders passed by HPEC should be furnished to respective petitioners. The petitioners will always have recourse to the High Powered Supervisory Committee (HPSC) if aggrieved by HPEC's orders…”, the court said listing the matter on June 15. 

The court also perused the affidavit filed by Additional Secretary of Bar Council of India, containing the interpretation of Rule 7(Procedure regarding complaint/disputes) of the BCI notification. On June 10 the high court had directed that the declaration of results of the elections shall remain subject to the outcome of pending petitionsand had sought BCI's stand on the hierarchy of grievance redressal mechanism.

“…BCI counsel has filed a memo enclosing a photocopy of the counter filed by the Additional Secretary of BCI. She submits that it was received by her on email. Considering the urgency of the matter, the printout of the scanned copy of the counter is taken on record…A perusal of the affidavit shows that elections to Bar Councils of various states are held in terms of directions issued by the Supreme Court on 18.02.2025 in M. Varadhan v. Union of India and Another. In the said matter, directions were issued by the Supreme Court mandating the conduct of elections and the respective authorities to deal with various issues. It is submitted that Rule 7 and the directions issued by the Supreme Court are harmonious and have to be read together”, the court noted, while perusing the BCI's affidavit. 

As per BCI's submission, the court noted, whenever any complaint is received by the Returning Officer, it should be forwarded to the High-Powered Election Committee (HPEC) of that state. Thereafter the HPEC is required to consider all the objections forwarded and pass necessary orders in terms of Rule 7.

"The counsel's submission is that if any person is aggrieved by orders of HPEC, the next stage of redressal would be High Powered Supervisory Committee (HPSC), and thereafter if the grievance still persists, to the Supreme Court, so long as grievances arise during the conduct of elections and prior to the declaration of results. After the conduct of elections, the Election Tribunals (4 in Nos, 2 recently constituted after the SC order in M.Varadhan) will have to consider any grievance filed before it upon declaration of results. The above hierarchy of settlement of grievances is required to be followed by candidates, the Returning Officer, and the committees established…”, the court said. 

During the hearing Additional Advocate General (AAG) Kiran V Ron submitted that approximately 15-16 complaints have already been decided by the HPEC after considering the grievances, while nearly 10 more complaints filed subsequent to May 13 remain pending.

The court at this stage asked, "After the order has been passed, were the orders given to the complainant?". The AAG said that if copies of orders have not been already furnished, the authorities would ensure it is  provided.

Background

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.

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.

On June 1 the high court had refused 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