Delhi High Court: In a writ petition relating to the Advocates’ Electoral Roll dispute filed by three advocates seeking a direction for inclusion of their names in the electoral roll for the Bar Council of Delhi elections, a Single-Judge Bench of Amit Bansal,* J., declined to examine the merits of the petitioners’ claim for inclusion in the electoral roll and relegated the petitioners to the statutory and court-mandated remedy of approaching the Bar Council Election Committee/Special Committee.
In the instant matter, the petitioners had obtained their LL.B. degrees and were provisionally enrolled as advocates on the State Roll maintained by the Bar Council of Delhi in August 2025. They had also appeared in the All India Bar Examination-XX, the results of which had not been declared at the time of filing of the petition.
The petitioners contended that they had submitted their Online Verification Forms with the Bar Council of Delhi, were duly verified, and had received WhatsApp communication confirming such verification. Despite this, their names were not included in the electoral roll on the ground that the results of the All India Bar Examination had not yet been declared.
The main issue in the present case is that, whether the High Court should direct inclusion of the petitioners’ names in the electoral roll for the Bar Council of Delhi elections despite the pending declaration of AIBE results, in view of the election process being governed by directions issued by the Supreme Court.
The Court took note of the detailed directions issued by the Supreme Court, in M. Varadhan v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1319/2019, decided on 18-10-2025, governing the entire election process including preparation and publication of electoral rolls, and the constitution of High-Powered Election Committees and Supervisory Committees.
The Court noted that as per Supreme Court’s order a Special Committee had been constituted specifically to conduct elections to the Bar Council of Delhi. The Court further noted that paragraph 19 of the Supreme Court’s order made it clear that individual grievances relating to elections could not be addressed in judicial proceedings and liberty was granted to aggrieved persons to approach the High-Powered Election Committee for redressal of their issues. It was also expressly provided the High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee’s decision would be final, and no civil court or High Court would entertain any petition against such decision.
In light of the binding directions issued by the Supreme Court, the Court declined to entertain the grievance on merits. The Court directed the petitioners to file a representation before the Special Committee by the next day. Considering the election schedule, the Court directed that the representation in the Advocates’ Electoral Roll dispute be considered and decided by the Special Committee on or before 12-01-2026.
[Umesh Kumar v. Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 76, Decided on 07-01-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Amit Bansal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Yadav, Mr. Kavesh Bidhuri, Mr. Suraj Pratap Singh, Mr. Harshit Singh Bedi, Mr. Bablo Yadav, Mr. Kunal Israney, Mr. Nandlal Singh & Mr. Vishesh Goel, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Himanshu Pathak, SPC & Mr. Rudhra Paliwal, GP, Counsel for the Union of India/Respondent 1
Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Ms. Medha Navami & Ms. Tanupreet Kaur, Counsel for the Bar Council of India/Respondent 2
Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr. Abhijit Chkravarty, Mr. Saurabh Kumar, Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Mr. Vedant Sood, Counsel for the Bar Council of Delhi/Respondent 3