The Supreme Court on Monday constituted two additional election tribunals for speedy adjudication of disputes arising out of elections to various state Bar Councils, while hearing petitions alleging irregularities in the election process and issues concerning reservation for women candidates.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that during the previous hearing on May 15, 2026, it had already expressed the need for one or more additional tribunals to deal with the growing number of disputes related to the ongoing state Bar Council elections.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Kumud Lata Das reiterated concerns regarding the counting process adopted in certain Bar Council elections. She argued that the Hare-Clark system of counting had allegedly not been properly followed and that the elimination process after first preference votes had distorted both the reservation mechanism and the final election results.
During the hearing, the Court observed that although one tribunal was already functioning, additional tribunals were necessary considering the large volume of election-related disputes emerging from the 2026 State Bar Council elections.
Accordingly, the Court constituted two fresh election tribunals.
The first tribunal will be headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Deepak Gupta, with former Andhra Pradesh High Court Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and senior advocate Mahalaxmi Pavani as members.
The second tribunal will be chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice Hima Kohli, with former Jharkhand High Court Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and senior advocate Kavita Wadia serving as members.
The Court directed the Bar Council of India (BCI) to obtain formal consent from the tribunal members and notify their constitution within three days. The Bench also clarified that aggrieved parties would be free to place their grievances before the respective tribunals and requested that all disputes be adjudicated expeditiously.
Further, all state Bar Councils were directed to preserve election records until the disputes are finally resolved.
During the hearing, a heated verbal exchange took place between advocate Kumud Lata Das and BCI Chairman Manan Kumar Mishra over the BCI’s role in the election process. Das argued that the BCI should not be part of the adjudicatory framework since the petitions themselves challenged the BCI’s decision to adopt a comprehensive ballot paper.
Responding to the submissions, Mishra objected to repeated allegations against the BCI and remarked that such accusations should stop.
This led to a sharp response from Das, who stated that she was not under the disciplinary authority of the BCI Chairman and asserted her right to address the Court independently as an Advocate-on-Record.
The situation was eventually defused by the Chief Justice, who observed that the dispute appeared to stem from a communication gap and reminded both sides that they were present to assist the Court and represent their respective clients.
The Bench further noted that issues relating to the co-option of women candidates had already been referred to the supervisory committee headed by former SC judge Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia.
The post Supreme Court sets up 2 new tribunals to fast-track state bar council elections appeared first on India Legal.