The Supreme Court today allowed the completion of counting of votes in the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) elections, but ordered that the results shall not be notified without its prior permission.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice V Mohana was hearing challenges to the Delhi High Court judgment which had declined to order a re-poll in the BCD elections over discovery of ballot tampering during counting. The Court had earlier stayed the counting process till the High Court decided finally the plea challenging the election.

CJI Kant also said that the Court would examine allegations relating to the suspension of 79 candidates during polling and the impact, if any, of those events on the election outcome. The Returning Officer had suspended 79 candidates on February 22 for alleged Model Code of Conduct violations, but withdrawn the suspension a day later.

During the hearing, the Chief Justice repeatedly emphasised that the Court would focus on whether any alleged irregularity had materially affected the election result.

"Let us see first of all that is there any individual impact? Is there any glaring example coming that but for this irregularity, so and so candidate would have succeeded? Then question of interference in writ jurisdiction will arise. But if it is a case where there is only if and buts and disputed facts, then probably the recourse adopted by the High Court will have to be approved. So from that angle, we will wait for some time," the CJI observed.

One of the petitioners argued that 79 candidates had been suspended during polling and that their votes ought not to have been counted. The CJI responded that the Court would examine the issue and assess its effect on the final outcome.

"If today somebody in the Bar Council or somebody in the election committee passes an order, high-handedly, to deprive a person from casting vote and passes an order and next day revokes the order because today is the date of voting, will you approve that action? You will not. So therefore, if some explanation has been accepted, whether it was rightly accepted, wrongly accepted, what is the impact of that acceptance on the ultimate outcome? That has to be seen," he said.

The Court also emphasised the importance of completing the election process. Highlighting the prolonged controversy surrounding the BCD polls, CJI Kant observed that some individuals may face hardship and some may even lose unfairly, but the democratic process must be kept in mind.

Addressing submissions regarding alleged irregularities, ballot tampering and the role of counting staff member Nikhil Kumar, who was arrested after being caught altering voter preferences on ballot papers, CJI Kant said that the Court would not ignore any compromise with the fairness of the election process.

"Anything which amounts to compromising with the purity, fairness and impartiality of the election process, we will examine and will not spare anyone," he said.

After hearing the parties at length, the Court ordered, "Meanwhile, the counting of the votes shall continue and be completed at the earliest. However, the result shall not be notified without prior permission of this Court."

Background

The dispute relates to the BCD elections held on February 21, 22 and 23, 2026, in which 221 candidates contested for 23 elected seats. During counting on April 15, a counting staff member, Nikhil Kumar, was allegedly caught altering voter preferences on ballot papers. An FIR was registered and counting was halted.

Following the incident, 116 candidates sought a re-poll, contending that the admitted ballot tampering and several other irregularities had irretrievably compromised the election process. The High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee rejected the demand and directed that counting restart from the elimination stage.

On June 6, the Delhi High Court upheld that decision, holding that the discovery of manipulated ballots did not justify scrapping the entire election and ordering a fresh poll. The High Court found that the affected ballots had been identified and corrected and that recounting from the stage of elimination counting was sufficient to address the issue.

The Supreme Court had earlier transferred the election dispute to the Delhi High Court for adjudication, observing that effective resolution might require examination of original election records, including ballot papers. After the High Court rejected the plea for re-poll, the matter returned to the Supreme Court.

Case no. – SLP(C) No. 21926/2026 Diary No. 36207 / 2026

Case Title – Rudra Vikram Singh v. Bar Council of Delhi