The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday [June 16] disposed of two pleas moved by contesting candidates challenging alleged malpractices in the elections to the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) held on March 11, asking them to approach the High-Powered Supervisory Committee as per the appellate mechanism.

The court took note of substantial compliance of Returning Officer, High Powered Election Committee (HPEC) and States Bar Council with the grievance redressal mechanism which has been envisaged.

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj disposed of the petitions filed by contesting candidates Smt. Sandhya U and Smt. Hema Kariyappa Gowda by stating that the hierarchy of grievance redressal as laid down by the Supreme Court in N. Varadan v. Union of India & Ors and BCI notification is crystal clear.

The petitioners' remedy on the merits of the matter lies elsewhere in the appellate mechanism, specifically the High-Powered Supervisory Committee (HPSC), the court added.

“…The issue considered by this Court is only with regards to whether Rule 7 [BCI Notification] procedural rigours and N. Varadan v. UoI have been followed. Now that substantive compliance is made and only remaining grievance is the forwarding of remaining complaints to HPEC…as per the hierarchy of grievance redressal mechanism, afterwards, the petitioners' remedy lies elsewhere., High Powered Supervisory Committee…in terms of the order dated 18.03.2026, reserving liberty to petitioners to avail remedies as indicated in N. Varadan's order, the petition stands disposed off…Senior Counsel K N Phaneendra submits for the bar council that all video recordings of the election are kept with Secretary and will be made available to the supervisory committee[appellate authority] if called upon …”, the court noted in the order.

During the hearing today the in-charge Secretary of KSBC submitted that 11 other complaints that were pending before the Returning Officer have been forwarded to the HPEC on June 15, leaving the number of complaints yet to be forwarded as "nil".

If there are any complaints not included in the statement yet to be placed before HPEC, the petitioners and other candidates can furnish a copy of the same to Returning Officer and it will be forwarded without delay, the senior counsel further orally submitted.

Noting the above submission, the court further clarified in the order as below:

“…Petitioners say that certain other complaints unaccounted for are still pending. Senior Counsel K N Phanindra says that once copies of such complaints are furnished to Returning Officer, it will be forwarded to HPEC… Liberty given to the petitioners to furnish complaints not reflected in Returning Officer's statement till June 18. Post June 18, no complaints will be entertained…AAG says all complaints furnished before the HPEC have been acted upon and orders passed…The 11 pending additional complaints (forwarded yesterday by the RO) will also be decided upon and copies of orders passed will be sent to persons concerned. Petitioners say that the orders passed earlier by HPEC on their respective complaints have not been furnished to them. AAG Kiran V Ron submits that they can approach the co-ordinator of HPEC and call on him at 4 pm on June 17, 2026, and the order copies will be furnished to respective parties in person as regards their respective complaints with due acknowledgement…”, the court added.

Background

On Monday the high court had directed the Karnataka State Bar Council and the Returning Officer to forthwith place the remaining complainants alleging malpractices in elections to the Council, before the High-Powered Election Committee (HPEC).

For context, Additional Advocate General Kiran V. Ron had filed an affidavit for the Coordinator of HPEC when the matter was taken up last time. His submission stated that 29 complaints were received till June 3, forwarded on various days by the Returning Officer, and the HPEC has passed orders on those complaints on different days.

The court was informed by AAG that some orders have been served on complainants while some are yet to be served, though arrangements are being made.

However, when the State's Bar Council filed a list of complaints received by the Returning Officer, there were 40 complaints as per the record. It was then that the court orally questioned the disparity in the number of complaints received by RO and the number of complaints forwarded to HPEC.

Earlier, the High Court had on June 12 asked the 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.

On June 10 the high court had directed that the declaration of results of the elections shall remain subject to the outcome of pending petitions and had sought BCI's stand on the hierarchy of grievance redressal mechanism. On that day, the court also afforded an 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.

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