Delhi Bar Association Elections: Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Plea Challenging Voter Eligibility Criteria, Allows To Approach HC
The Supreme Court today (September 25) refused to entertain a plea challenging requirement of furnishing proximity cards and minimum 12 appearances for eligibility to vote in Delhi Bar Association elections imposed by the Delhi High Court.
A bench of Justice BR Gavai, Justice KV Vishwanathan and Justice PK Mishra disposed of the petition.
The Court noted petitioner's plea of practical difficulties due to the impugned order and granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Delhi High Court to seek modification.
The petition, filed by advocate Anurag Rawal through AOR Rajat Sehgal challenged two new eligibility criteria for voting in upcoming bar association elections, imposed by the HC accepting recommendations of a Committee appointed by it. These conditions require: 1. Voters must hold an Identity Card or Proximity Card to cast their vote in bar association elections.
2. Advocates must have made at least 12 court appearances in the previous year by July 31 of the election year. In the case of law firm advocates, proof of remuneration for six months, certified by an equity partner, must be submitted.
The petition claimed that such retrospective conditions were arbitrary.
“it is highly arbitrary and unfair to keep such an eligibility criteria retrospectively, where the voters were not aware a year ago that such a criteria will be kept at a later stage. It is further arbitrary to deny the right to vote on the basis of such retrospective applicability of rules which a voter had no way of knowing a year back”, as per the petition.
The HC had passed the impugned judgment imposing the above conditions in furtherance of the 'One Bar One Vote' principle, requiring that one advocate vote only in one Bar association election.
The petition claimed that the new conditions for voter eligibility infringe on the voting rights of members who had already qualified as voters under the bar association's rules. The retrospective imposition of these conditions is arbitrary and a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution, which protects the right to form associations, the petition stated.
The petition argued that these conditions were imposed without proper consultation with all stakeholders, especially the bar associations.
The petition contended that the High Court failed to recognize that Proximity Cards are merely for regulating entry to court premises, and issuing Proximity Cards does not prevent advocates from possessing multiple cards for different bar associations, which undermines the objective of ensuring 'One Bar One Vote'.
The petition claimed that the requirement for advocates to prove a minimum of 12 court appearances in the year preceding the election is an unfair metric, as it excludes bona fide advocates engaged in legal work such as drafting and filing, who may not appear frequently in court.
The petition claimed that the requirement for law firm advocates to disclose proof of remuneration for six months violates their right to privacy, as advocates are not comfortable sharing financial information without any clear rationale linking such disclosure to voter eligibility.
The petition further argued that the High Court's judgment went beyond the scope of the writ petitions. The original petitions focused on holding simultaneous elections across bar associations and issuing proper ID cards for lawyers. None of the petitions raised the issue of voter eligibility criteria. Therefore, the petitioner contended, the High Court and its appointed committee should not have introduced new eligibility criteria without proper justification.
Related –
Case no. – Diary No. 42875-2024
Case Title – Anurag Rawal v. Lalit Sharma and Ors.