On Monday, the Delhi High Court examined a challenge to the conduct and outcome of the 2025 elections of the New Delhi Bar Association (NDBA), raising important questions about the maintainability of writ petitions in election-related disputes involving private bodies.
The dispute arose from the elections conducted for the New Delhi Bar Association at Patiala House Courts, where polling took place on March 21, 2025, followed by declaration of results the next day. Under the NDBA Election Guidelines, voting rights and access to the polling area were restricted strictly to advocates holding valid proximity cards. Following the declaration of results, certain unsuccessful candidates approached the High Court seeking quashing of the election outcome, alleging serious procedural irregularities during the polling process.
The Petitioners contended that the sanctity of the election was compromised as individuals without valid proximity cards allegedly entered the polling area and cast votes. According to them, this resulted in a mismatch between the number of votes recorded and the proximity cards scanned, thereby vitiating the electoral process.
On the other hand, the Returning Officer opposed the plea, asserting that multiple layers of verification were in place throughout the election process. It was submitted that only authorised voters were permitted to vote, proximity cards were checked at various stages including physical verification, and there was neither any extension of polling hours nor any complaint regarding malfunction of scanning equipment.
Justice Mini Pushkarna noted that the petition essentially sought to challenge the outcome of an election on the basis of disputed factual claims. The Court emphasised that such disputes are private in nature, concerning individual aspirations to hold office in a bar association, and do not involve any public duty or public law element warranting writ jurisdiction.
The Court further observed that neither the contesting candidates nor the Returning Officer could be regarded as public authorities, and the conduct of NDBA elections did not relate to the functioning of the courts as public institutions. On the allegations of irregular voting, the Court remarked that there was no material placed on record to substantiate claims of unauthorised voting or bogus ballots. It also took note of the absence of any contemporaneous complaints regarding technical issues with proximity card verification.
Concluding that a writ petition was not the appropriate remedy, the High Court dismissed the plea as not maintainable. However, liberty was granted to the petitioners to pursue their grievances by filing a civil suit or an election petition, if so advised. The Court clarified that its observations in the present proceedings would not prejudice the adjudication of any such future proceedings.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
