[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Deepti Gour vs Bar Council Of India on 23 January, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 WP-2996-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
WP No. 2996 of 2026
(SMT. DEEPTI GOUR Vs BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA AND OTHERS )
Dated : 23-01-2026
Shri Pramod Kumar Mitha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri N.S.Bhati, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, on advance
notice.
Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, on
advance notice.
Shri Ajay Mishra and Shri Ashutosh Nimgaonkar, learned counsel for
the respondent no.4, on advance notice.
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, challenging the election process being conducted by the Election
Committee, High Court Bar Association, Indore, for removing the name of
the petitioner in the final list of contesting candidates for the post of
Secretary in the ensuing Bar Association Election scheduled to take place on
28.01.2026.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have
arbitrarily removed her name from the nomination form and did not include
her name in the list of contesting candidates.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 on advance notice raised a
preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable under Article 226
of the Constitution of India against the Bar Association as it does not come
within the definition of "State".
2 WP-2996-2026
In support of his submission, he placed reliance on the judgment
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in the case of
Secretary Alipore Bar Association Vs. Subir Sengupta and Ors reported in
2024 SCC Online Cal 3597, in which the Apex Court referred the judgments
passed by the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas Vs. Indian
Institute of Chemical Biology reported in (2020) 5 SCC 111, West Bengal
State Election Commission Vs. Communist Party of India (Marxist)
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 141 and Election Commission of India VS.
Ashok Kumar reported in (2000) 8 SCC 216.
Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petition is
maintainable and in support of his submission, he placed reliance on the
judgment passed by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Ms.Savita Tiwari
Vs. State of MP and Ors passed in WP No.27337/2024 decided on
30.09.2024 and also in the case of Secretary, Governor's Secretariat vs.
A.B.S. Narayanan reported in (2020) 6 SCC 548 and the judgment passed by
this court in the case of Smt.Shamabai Vs. Panchayat and Rural
Development and Ors passed in WP No.12982/2022 decided on 20.06.2022.
He further argued that by the interim relief, the petitioner be permitted
to contest the election for the post of Secretary of the Bar Association, which
is scheduled to take place on 28.01.2026.
For the said prayer of grant of interim relief, learned counsel for the
respondent no.4 submitted that the election process has already been
commenced. The election notification has been issued by the Committee of
the Bar Association on 06.01.2026, and the filing of the form was scheduled
3 WP-2996-2026
on 16-17.01.2026. The scrutiny of form took place on 17.01.2026.
It is submitted that since the secondar had withdrawn his support,
therefore, the form of the petitioner has been rejected.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, issue notice to the
respondents.
Since the respondents except respondent no.3, are being represented,
therefore, issue notice to the respondent no.3 only on payment of PF within a
week.
So far the issue regarding maintainability is concerned, right now we
propose to decide the said issue after reply and service of notice on the
respondent no.3.
In regard to the prayer for interim relief, it is submitted that the
election process has already commenced on 06.01.2026 and the election is
scheduled to take place on 28.01.2026, the ballot papers have already been
published. The law in regard to the grant of interim relief in the election
matters after the commencement of the election process is well settled. In the
case of Prakash Motiram Chavan v. Harichand & Ors reported in (2015) 16
SCC 448, Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami Vs State Of Maharashtra And
Ors reported in (2001) 8 SCC 509, Arjun Yadav VS. MP Rajya Nirvachan
Ayog reported in 2015 (3) MPLJ 104, and Satish Vs. State Election
Commission, Bhopal reported in (2015) 3 MPLJ 405, it is held that once the
election process has commenced, the same cannot be stayed or no interim
relief can be granted.
In view of the aforesaid, the prayer for interim relief to allow the
4 WP-2996-2026
petitioner to contest the election cannot be granted.
The prayer for interim relief is rejected.
List the matter in the week commencing 23.02.2026.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (ALOK AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Sourabh
