Home  > Recent Judgements  > SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTES TWO NEW ELECTION TRIBUNALS FOR SPEEDY RESOLUTION OF STATE BAR COUNCIL ELECTION DISPUTES

April-07- 2026

SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTES TWO NEW ELECTION TRIBUNALS FOR SPEEDY RESOLUTION OF STATE BAR COUNCIL ELECTION DISPUTES

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India has taken a significant step towards ensuring timely adjudication of disputes arising out of State Bar Council elections by constituting two additional Election Tribunals. The decision came in the matter of SAVITA DEVI @ SAVITA DHANDA AND ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. a case that raised important concerns regarding transparency, electoral procedures, reservation policies, and delays in resolving disputes connected with Bar Council elections conducted across various states.

The order was passed by a Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Recognizing the growing number of election-related litigations and the necessity of expeditious disposal, the Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to formally notify the newly constituted tribunals within three days after obtaining consent from the appointed members.

Background of the Dispute

The case emerged against the backdrop of several disputes relating to elections conducted by different State Bar Councils in 2026. Allegations were raised regarding irregularities in election procedures, counting methods, reservation implementation, and publication of results.

One of the central grievances highlighted before the Court concerned the implementation of the 20% reservation for women candidates in Bar Council elections. Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Kumud Lata Das, submitted that in a particular election where five women candidates were to be elected, the prescribed Hare-Clark system of proportional representation was allegedly not followed properly.

According to the submissions, instead of conducting the counting process strictly in accordance with the Hare-Clark system, authorities published the elimination list after considering only the first preference votes. This, the petitioners argued, adversely affected the fairness and transparency of the election process.

The petitioners also questioned the decision to use a composite ballot paper during the elections, contending that it created confusion among voters and candidates. Concerns were additionally raised regarding the role of the Bar Council of India in the election-related process and supervisory mechanisms.

What is the Hare-Clark System?

The Hare-Clark electoral system is a form of proportional representation based on the single transferable vote (STV) method. It is designed to ensure fair representation by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference.

Under this system:

  • Votes are transferred according to voter preferences;

  • Surplus votes of elected candidates are redistributed;

  • Lowest-ranked candidates are progressively eliminated;

  • Counting continues until all seats are filled proportionally.

The system is intended to reduce vote wastage and ensure broader representation. Allegations of deviation from this method therefore became a crucial issue before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Decision

Taking note of the growing number of disputes and the necessity of institutional mechanisms for speedy adjudication, the Supreme Court ordered the constitution of two additional Election Tribunals.

These tribunals are in addition to the already functioning tribunal headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.

The newly constituted tribunals are as follows:

Tribunal I

  • Justice Deepak Gupta – Chairperson

  • Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur – Member

  • Mahalakshmi Pavani – Member

Tribunal II

  • Justice Hima Kohli – Chairperson

  • Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan – Member

  • Kaveeta Wadia – Member

The Court clarified that all aggrieved parties would be free to approach the tribunals and submit their claims, objections, and grievances relating to Bar Council elections.

Importantly, the Bench requested all tribunals to dispose of the disputes expeditiously, emphasizing the need for swift adjudication so that functioning of the State Bar Councils is not hampered by prolonged litigation.

Directions Issued by the Court

The Supreme Court also issued several important directions to preserve the integrity of the election process:

1. Preservation Of Records

The State Bar Councils were directed to maintain and preserve all election-related records until the disputes are finally adjudicated by the tribunals. This includes ballot papers, counting records, elimination sheets, voter lists, and related documents.

2. Expeditious Disposal

The tribunals were requested to prioritize election matters and ensure speedy disposal, recognizing that prolonged uncertainty affects both advocates and institutional administration.

3. Liberty To Aggrieved Parties

All parties dissatisfied with election procedures, counting methods, reservations, or results were granted liberty to file claims before the respective tribunals.



Role of the Bar Council of India

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Gurukrishna Kumar informed the Court that the Bar Council of India had already framed rules in 2023 for constitution of election tribunals. Pursuant to those rules, one tribunal was already functioning.

Meanwhile, BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra emphasized before the Court that multiple tribunals had become necessary due to the large number of disputes arising from the 2026 State Bar Council elections across the country.

According to the BCI, establishing additional tribunals would help prevent delays and ensure that disputes are resolved efficiently and systematically.

Significance of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s intervention is significant for several reasons.

Strengthening Electoral Transparency:

The order reinforces the importance of transparent and fair electoral processes within professional regulatory bodies such as State Bar Councils.

Timely Resolution of Disputes:

Election disputes often remain pending for years, affecting the legitimacy and functioning of elected bodies. By creating multiple tribunals headed by retired Supreme Court and High Court judges, the Court has attempted to institutionalize speedy adjudication.

Importance Of Women’s Representation:

The controversy surrounding implementation of the 20% reservation for women candidates also highlights the increasing focus on gender representation within legal institutions.

Institutional Accountability:

The Court’s insistence on preserving records and allowing open adjudication reflects a broader commitment toward accountability and procedural fairness in self-regulating professional bodies.

Broader Context: Bar Council Elections in India

State Bar Councils are statutory bodies constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961. They regulate the legal profession at the state level, including enrolment of advocates, disciplinary proceedings, and welfare measures.

Elections to these bodies are highly significant because elected representative’s influence:

  • Governance of the legal profession;

  • Welfare schemes for advocates;

  • Disciplinary control;

  • Legal education standards;

  • Representation in the Bar Council of India.

Given the importance of these institutions, disputes concerning electoral fairness directly impact confidence in the legal regulatory framework.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to establish two additional Election Tribunals marks an important development in ensuring transparency, efficiency, and accountability in State Bar Council elections. By appointing former Supreme Court and High Court judges alongside senior advocates, the Court has sought to create credible and independent mechanisms for adjudication.

The outcome of these disputes, particularly those involving the Hare-Clark system and women’s reservation, may have a lasting impact on how Bar Council elections are conducted in the future. The ruling also underscores the judiciary’s commitment to preserving democratic processes within professional institutions and ensuring that election-related grievances are addressed promptly and fairly.