In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has stayed the Delhi High Court’s order that mandated simultaneous elections for the executive committees of various bar associations. The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, has brought temporary relief to several bar associations that were preparing to hold their elections independently.
The controversy began when the Delhi High Court, in its judgment dated March 19, 2024, and subsequent order dated May 28, 2024, directed that all bar associations under the jurisdiction of the Bar Council of Delhi must hold their executive committee elections simultaneously. The High Court’s decision aimed to streamline the election process across different associations to ensure uniformity and transparency.
However, this directive was challenged by D.K. Sharma and others, who argued that the High Court’s order was overly restrictive and interfered with the independent functioning of the bar associations. The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, with support from advocates Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, Mr. Atif Suhrawardy, and Mr. Tabrez Ahmad, moved the Supreme Court, seeking relief from the High Court’s mandate.
The petitioners raised several legal questions before the Supreme Court:
1. Autonomy of Bar Associations: Whether the Delhi High Court’s order infringed upon the autonomy of the individual bar associations, which traditionally had the right to determine their election schedules.
2. Uniformity vs. Independence: The legal debate centered around whether a mandate for simultaneous elections would genuinely promote fairness and transparency or whether it would undermine the independence of the bar associations.
After hearing extensive arguments, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and issued an interim stay on the High Court’s order. The bench clarified, “Until further orders, there shall be a stay of the impugned orders passed by the High Court.”
Importantly, the Supreme Court emphasized that the ongoing appeals would not prevent any bar associations from proceeding with their planned elections. “Needless to state that the pendency of the present appeals would not amount to staying the elections of any of the bodies,” the Court observed, ensuring that the democratic process could continue without disruption.
