Court Rejects Demand for Re-poll, Orders Resumption of Counting with Enhanced Security Measures and Transparency
In a landmark judgment delivered on June 6, 2026, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Tejas Karia, dismissed writ petitions challenging the Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) elections held in February 2026. The petitions, transferred from the Supreme Court of India, arose from allegations of ballot tampering and multiple irregularities during the election and counting process.
The BCD elections, conducted under the Advocates Act, 1961, involved 221 candidates vying for 23 posts through a preferential voting system. The counting of first-preference votes concluded between March 7 and April 9, 2026. However, during the subsequent elimination stage on April 15, 2026, manipulation of 27 ballot papers was detected by election officials. The tampering involved alteration of voter preferences on ballot papers to favor a specific candidate.
Upon discovery, the counting was immediately halted, and an FIR was registered against the accused, Mr. Nikhil Kumar, a member of the counting staff, who admitted to the wrongdoing. The Election Committee, under the Returning Officer's supervision, segregated the manipulated ballots and transferred votes according to the original voter intention. The High-Powered Election Supervisory Committee (HPESC), constituted by the Supreme Court, rejected the petitioners’ plea for a complete re-poll, directing instead that counting resume from the stage immediately after the first-preference counting.
The petitioners contended that the ballot tampering and other alleged violations of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) compromised the entire election process, warranting annulment and re-polling. However, the Court found that the MCC violations, such as unauthorized campaigning and suspension of candidates during polling, were addressed appropriately by the Election Committee, with suspension withdrawals following compliance assurances. The Court held that not every MCC breach vitiates an election.
Importantly, the Court observed that no credible evidence indicated tampering during first-preference counting, which was conducted under continuous CCTV surveillance and live streaming, ensuring transparency. The manipulation was confined to the elimination stage, and appropriate safeguards under BCD Rules and Bar Council of India (BCI) Guidelines were in place to deal with such incidents.
To enhance transparency and security, the Court mandated the installation of high-resolution cameras above counting tables to capture full ballot papers, use of lockable boxes for ballot custody during breaks, strict identity verification of counting staff, and continuous CCTV surveillance with regulated access. The Court also authorized the Additional Solicitor General to decide on the validity of doubtful ballots, with decisions being final.
The Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial interference during ongoing elections, emphasizing that election disputes are generally to be resolved through election petitions post-declaration of results. However, given the Supreme Court’s transfer of the matter for adjudication on merits, the High Court undertook a detailed examination, ultimately upholding the HPESC’s decision to continue the election process with enhanced safeguards.
All rights of the petitioners to pursue election petitions after the conclusion of the election were preserved. The Court cautioned that any obstruction or misconduct during the counting would be dealt with strictly under the law.
This decision reinforces the principle that isolated incidents of ballot tampering, when promptly addressed with adequate safeguards, do not necessarily invalidate an entire election. It also underscores the importance of balancing electoral integrity with the need for orderly and timely completion of election processes.
Bottom Line:
Election law - Ballot Tampering - Judicial interference in ongoing election process is limited and exceptional - Admitted ballot tampering during counting does not necessarily vitiate entire election where adequate safeguards and corrective measures exist.
Statutory provision(s): Section 3, Section 6, Section 8A, Section 35(1) of the Advocates Act, 1961; Rules 23(2), 23(3), 34(1), 35 of Bar Council of Delhi Rules, 1963; Model Code of Conduct; Bar Council of India Guidelines (2026); Article 226, Article 329(b) of the Constitution of India
Raman Gandhi v. Bar Council of Delhi, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2917540
