Supreme Court Suggests Common Election Date For SCBA, Delhi HC And District Bar Associations In Delhi

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the views of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Delhi High Court Bar Association and district bar associations in Delhi on whether their elections could be held on a common date, observing that the arrangement could resolve the issue of multiplicity of votes by the members.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan asked representatives of the respective bar associations to consult their members and assist the Court in considering the proposal.

The CJI observed that holding elections on the same day would require advocates who are members of multiple bar associations to choose the association in which they wish to vote, instead of voting in more than one association.

“Why not the election in entire Delhi, district bar, High Court and Supreme Court be held on one date in December. Because the other elections are being held in December. If you hold election on one date, the idea of multiplicity of votes and all this problem will be solved. That one election itself will bring a lot of reforms. One bar, one vote, and in any case on one date, one can have choice. One bar, one vote may not technically be there. But suppose somebody is a member of the Tis Hazari. He's also a member of Supreme Court Bar. He says, instead of Tis Hazari district bar, I would like to prefer to cast my vote in the Supreme Court. Let him come here, but not there. You know, that kind of exercise can be there”, he said.

The Court was hearing the matter concerning electoral reforms in the SCBA. The Court also invited suggestions from the bar associations on whether there should be a cap on the number of terms an individual can serve as an office-bearer.

Supreme Court Suggests Common Election Calendar For Delhi Bar Associations

The CJI suggested that elections to the SCBA, Delhi High Court Bar Association and district bar associations in Delhi could be held on a common date every year.

He observed that the arrangement could address the issue of advocates belonging to multiple associations and help streamline the electoral process.

“For example, say first week of November, it can be like this. The election will always be held in first week of November,” the CJI said, suggesting that the associations could agree on a common annual election calendar.

He clarified that the Court would not prescribe a date and would first seek the views of the stakeholders. If the associations agreed, the election date could be notified in advance and followed in subsequent years, he said.

The CJI said that the Court wanted representatives of the relevant associations to participate in the next hearing so that their views could be considered before any decision was taken.

“We will have stakeholders on board,” he said.

The bench observed that a common election date could facilitate the implementation of the “one bar, one vote” principle. An advocate who was a member of both a district bar association and the SCBA, for instance, could choose to vote in either association, but would not be permitted to vote in both.

On May 29, 2026, the Court prescribed revised eligibility criteria for voters and candidates, safeguards against electoral inducements and other measures to improve transparency and accountability. In July, the Court deferred implementation of the reforms to the 2027-28 election cycle and directed the Election Committee to continue working on the necessary changes by December 31, 2026.

Today, the Court sought figures on the number of members of the SCBA and the number eligible to vote in its elections.

During the hearing, SCBA Vice-President Rahul Kaushik stated that the association had approximately 28,000 to 30,000 members, while around 3,400 to 3,500 members had participated as eligible voters in the latest election.

The CJI asked whether the eligibility conditions had resulted in a substantial number of members being unable to participate in the election.

The SCBA's representatives explained that membership and eligibility to vote were distinct, and some members either do not satisfy the prescribed requirements or choose to vote in another bar association.

The CJI asked the representatives of the Bar Associations to provide details of the total membership and the eligible electorate, including the effect of the existing eligibility requirements.

He said the Court wanted to ensure that voting rights were exercised by genuine members who regularly attended the court and participated in its activities.

“Those who are coming only once to celebrate annual day, they should not be allowed,” the CJI added.

The Court also asked whether the Supreme Court Registry could develop software to consolidate proximity card entry records to establish how frequently advocates visited the Court.

The issue arose in the context of the electoral reforms directed on May 29, 2026, which provided that proximity card entries could be used only as corroborative evidence and not as the sole basis for establishing eligibility to vote.

The CJI suggested that the Registry could develop a system that automatically recorded the date and time of each entry associated with an advocate's proximity card in a common database. He said that the system could provide a consolidated record of the number of times an advocate entered the Court during a year.

The Court directed the Election Committee constituted to oversee the SCBA's electoral reforms to submit a status report in consultation with the association's Executive Committee addressing the recommendations and the steps being taken to implement the reforms contemplated in the Court's May 29 order.

The Court also discussed whether proposed changes with a substantial impact on membership should be placed before the SCBA's general body. The CJI observed that if the reforms were likely to adversely affect a large number of members, the matter might need to be considered by the general body.

Court Seeks Suggestions On Cap On Terms Of Office-Bearers

The Court also sought the views of the bar associations on a plea to impose a maximum limit on the number of times an individual could hold an elected post in a bar association.

The issue arose in an interlocutory application seeking a cap on holding office in the SCBA, referring to Rule 17 of SCBA Rules and the existing practice of a cooling-off period after an individual held a post for two consecutive years.

Senior Advocate Shobha Gupta for the applicant submitted that the SCBA had eight posts, from President to Executive Member, and pointed out that an individual could hold each post four times. Taking the cooling-off periods into account, she said that the arrangement could allow an individual to occupy elected positions over a period extending to 47 years.

She also submitted that some lawyers who had held office continued to campaign for other candidates during their cooling-off periods and transfer their votes to them. She argued that restrictions were needed to ensure that members remained focused on legal practice rather than repeatedly holding elected positions.

The CJI expressed reservation, observing that any such restriction would have to be considered against the electorate's right to choose its representatives.

“We want reform, but reforms of such a nature, that you don't leave the voters with the choice they want to exercise,” he said.

The CJI observed that serving as an office-bearer of the SCBA was a significant responsibility, involving professional sacrifice, and the association's members should be able to choose who represents them.

“In a way, we are imposing a restriction on the elector to say that we will not permit you to elect a person of your choice. If the electorate wants to have a person of their choice, in a way, we are saying that we will not allow that person to contest, therefore, you cannot have a person of your choice. That would be too harsh and disproportionate”, he said.

SCBA Vice-President Rahul Kaushik stated that a cap already existed under the association's Rules, and an individual can hold a particular post for a maximum of four terms.

The Court said that it was not inclined to express a final view at this stage. It asked the representatives of the SCBA, Delhi High Court Bar Association and district bar associations to indicate whether they supported the proposal, opposed it or wished to suggest an alternative.