Karnataka High Court Refuses To Stay State Bar Council Election Process In Contesting Candidate's Plea Alleging Malpractices

The Karnataka High Court on Friday [May 29] declined to stay the counting process and the declaration of results of the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) Elections 2026, while hearing a plea by a contesting candidate alleging widespread malpractices including cash bribes, pre-marked ballot papers, and bogus voting.

The single judge bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti was hearing the writ filed by Hema Kariyappa Gowda, an advocate and contesting candidate who appeared before the High Court in person.

The petition challenges the conduct of the KSBC elections held on March 11, 2026, for electing 23 members out of 149 candidates across the state, and seeks to halt the declaration of results pending an inquiry.

Today, however, the Court orally observed that it may not be possible to stall the counting process noting that such issues are best left for the Election Tribunal.

While refusing to grant an immediate stay on the counting process determining the election results, the Court has listed the matter for further hearing on June 1 after the petitioner sought for production of the CCTV footages pertaining to the election process.

Gowda, in her plea, had alleged serious violations of the Bar Council of India (BCI) Code of Conduct during the conduct of elections. It is claimed by the petitioner that several candidates distributed cash bribes, gifts, and hosted unofficial parties to influence voters. Despite submitting complaints on several occasions to the High-Powered Election Committee (HPEC), she alleges that no effective action was taken.

At the Bengaluru polling booth (City Civil Court premises), it is alleged that the '1st preference' votes were marked in the same handwriting and ink in favour of candidate Sl. No. 24, Shri Devaraj M., while the remaining preferences were in different handwriting. At the Aurad polling booth, 53 votes were allegedly cast against only 47 registered voters. Electricity was allegedly deliberately disconnected at the Bagalkot booth to facilitate malpractices, the plea further states.

Hence, the plea challenges the alleged malpractices during the conduct of the elections and seeks a mandamus to refer such complaints to the Central Election Tribunal (Respondent No. 5) before results are declared.

The petitioner has also sought a direction from the court towards the respondents for the production of CCTV footage from all 194 polling booths across Karnataka.

The Karnataka State Bar Council (R3), in its statement of objections has argued that the High Court should not interfere in an election process once it is set in motion, citing that any dispute regarding corrupt practices or rigging must be raised via a formal Election Petition before the designated Election Tribunal after the results are declared, not through a Writ Petition.

Regarding specific allegations made by Gowda, the respondents have denied any foul play, stating that unverified WhatsApp complaints cannot be a reason to disqualify candidates and allegations of pre-marked ballots require forensic examination and trial. The CCTV footage is kept under sealed covers in a strong room and can be made available for the Election Tribunal if required, the respondents further submitted.

When the matter was taken up today, Senior Counsel K N Phaneendra for the R3 -Karnataka State Bar Council-iterated that the counting process is already nearing an end and the elimination rounds are ongoing. Disputes involving disputed questions of fact cannot be ascertained through the court's writ jurisdiction, the counsel further submitted.

The State Bar Council also argued that the Supreme Court, in an order dated May 18, 2026 (concerning Bar Council elections), has already constituted Election Tribunals for swiftly settling disputes- headed by former Supreme Court judges - Justice Deepak Gupta and Justice Hima Kohli. These tribunals are also empowered to grant interim reliefs, the counsel added.

The counsel for the Bar Council further argued, "The counting process cannot be stalled in an election matter….The Returning Officer, a retired Judge of this Court, has already considered and rejected the complaints [of Ms Gowda] on May 12, 2025."

Hema Kariyappa Gowda, arguing in person, pleaded, "They have to consider my representation. I asked for transparency to be maintained before counting… On the day of election, I was the only person who complained to the Returning Officer… further counting of ballots shall be kept in abeyance”

While refusing to grant an immediate stay on the declaration of results, the Court has listed the matter for further hearing on June 1.

Senior Counsel K N Phaneendra a/a Adv Chaitanya SG appeared for the State Bar Council. The High-Powered Election Committee [R2] was represented by Additional Advocate General Kiran Roon.

Case Title: Hema Kariyappa Gowda v. The Chairman, HPEC & Ors.

Case No: WP 15252/2026