Six candidates who contested the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections for the post of Executive Member have filed an application before the Supreme Court seeking directions for recounting of ballot papers. The application alleges serious irregularities and malpractices during the counting process which allegedly resulted in inflation of votes polled by certain candidates and a corresponding decrease in the votes polled by the applicants.

The interim application has been filed by Smriti Kumari (Ballot No 15), Shweta Sinha (Ballot No 45), Shehla Chaudhary (Ballot No 3), Sundari (Ballot No 49), Sachin Pahwa (Ballot No 24), and Krishna Kumar Gupta (Ballot No 11). It is filed through AOR (Dr.) Vipin Gupta.

It is stated that the SCBA election was conducted as per the applicable rules, with a duly constituted Election Committee, and that the applicants, having the requisite qualification, had filed their nominations for the post of Executive Member. Their candidatures were found to be in order and they were, hence, permitted to contest. Thereafter, the polling took place on 18th August 2026.

While counting for the posts of President, Vice-President, Honorary Secretary, Joint Secretary, and Treasurer was completed on the same day, that is, 18th August, the counting for the post of Executive Member alone was commenced only in the evening of 19th August, and continued until 20th August, and eventually results were declared on 21st August.

It is alleged that the “various unfair means” were adopted by volunteers appointed at the behest of certain candidates for the post of Executive Member. These volunteers allegedly “used to increase the numbers of the votes cast by making the wrongful pronouncements at the end of the each round”, and simultaneously “used to decrease the numbers of the votes cast to the applicants”. It is stated that as a result, “the votes of the candidates for the post of Executive Members having the nexus with volunteers got substantially increased and the votes of the applicants got substantially decreased.”

The application further alleges that “all the illegible candidates have got more votes” while genuine candidates “could not be able to compete” due to the alleged manipulation, and that this had been pointed out to the Election Committee by several candidates for the post of Executive Member during the counting itself.

In the first representation dated 20th August, submitted by Sinha stated that, “every time when round is completed the total number of the votes cast to the undersigned is declared and the difference in the total number occurs as the undersigned has also been throughout noting down the declaration of the votes cast to her. It may kindly be noted that when the difference has been pointed out to the esteemed Election Committee orally but no heed has been paid and rather it has been ignored.”

In the second (joint) representation dated 21st August, several specific grievances were set out, including the presence of interested volunteers, alleging that “advocates who actively campaigned alongside certain candidates were permitted to participate as volunteers in the counting process.” Change in tallying practices, discovery of unaccounted blank ballots, lack of transparency, suppression of the formal complaint regarding the manipulation, and rushed counting process are also raised in the second representation annexed with the application.

The application also states that despite the representations, the Election Committee neither responded to nor resolved the grievances raised by the applicants, and instead “hastily declared the result afternoon at about 4 pm on 21.08.2026.”

The application also points out that the last elected candidate to the post of Executive Member secured 436 votes, and also contends that “there has been every likelihood that if the fair countings have been done the applicants herein had been elected.”

The application submits that fairness is the “fairness is hallmark of the entire functions in democratic system and certainly the holding the election”. “The silence and inaction on the part of the Election Committee cannot be appreciated in the facts and circumstances of the present matter,” it is submitted.

In the light of above, prayer is made before the Supreme Court to set aside the result with respect to the post of Executive Members declaring it as “null and void”. Recounting of the ballot papers is also sought, while also seeking direction for the SCBA/Election Committee for the same.

The interim application is filed in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association v BD Kaushik & Anr (Diary No. 13992 of 2023)