Delhi HC Declines to Interfere in Bar Council of Delhi Election Process, Clarifies Results to Be Declared Only After Vote Reconciliation [Read Order]

New Delhi: The High Court of Delhi has declined to interfere with the decision of the Returning Officer in the Bar Council of Delhi elections and disposed of a writ petition filed by nine candidates contesting the elections, clarifying that the results shall be declared only after the reconciliation process is conducted.

The order was passed on April 2, 2026, by Justice Amit Bansal in W.P.(C) 4316 of 2026.

The writ petition was filed by nine candidates who had contested the Bar Council of Delhi elections conducted in February 2026. The petitioners assailed a communication dated March 20, 2026, issued by the Returning Officer and sought a direction that the reconciliation process be carried out forthwith while the counting process was ongoing.

By the impugned communication dated March 20, 2026, the Returning Officer assured the candidates that reconciliation of all votes would take place after the counting process was completed. Before the Court, the petitioners submitted that there would be no point in carrying out reconciliation once the winners were disclosed. They further submitted that upon the conclusion of Round 1 of counting, certain candidates would be eliminated, and therefore, reconciliation should be conducted after Round 1.

Counsel for the Bar Council of Delhi explained the reconciliation process, stating that all votes and ballots must be reconciled to verify how many votes were actually polled, and that this process was also followed in the last election in 2018. It was further submitted that the counting process, taking place at S Block of the High Court, could be viewed on YouTube with cameras installed on the floor, and that the process involved not only the Returning Officer but also 21 additional Returning Officers, 20 counting observers, including Senior Advocates, and several other lawyers.

The petitioners submitted that on the first day of voting, February 21, it was officially announced that approximately 17,500 votes were polled. However, at the end of the day, it was declared that 17,799 votes had been polled, revealing a discrepancy of around 214 votes.

The Court held that no grounds for interference with the Returning Officer’s decision were made out and that the grievance of the candidates had been adequately addressed by the assurance that the reconciliation process would be carried out after the counting was completed and before the declaration of results. The Court directed the petitioners to make a representation to the Returning Officer regarding their submission that reconciliation should be conducted after Round 1 of counting. It expressly clarified that the results shall be declared only after the reconciliation process is conducted.

Counsel for the Bar Council of Delhi objected to the maintainability of the petition. The Court recorded that, in light of the present order, it was not necessary to examine the issue of maintainability, which was kept open. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Case Details

• Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
• Case: W.P.(C) 4316 of 2026
• Coram: Justice Amit Bansal
• Date of Order: April 2, 2026
• Parties: Anushkaa Arora and Others v. Bar Council of Delhi and Others
• Counsel for Petitioner No. 1: Mr. Kunal Israney, Mr. Amit Anand, Mr. Sidhant Chaudhary, Ms. Anchal Yadav and Ms. Anushkaa, Advocates
• Counsel for Bar Council of India: Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Ms. Medha Sharma, Ms. Simran Kumari, Ms. Pooja and Mr. Gaurav, Advocates
• Counsel for Bar Council of Delhi (Respondent No. 1): Mr. T. Singhdev, Mr. Tanishq Srivastava, Mr. Abhijit Chakravarty, Ms. Yamini Singh, Mr. Bhanu Gulati, Mr. Vedant Sood and Ms. Ramanpreet Kaur, Advocates
• Counsel for Union of India: Mr. Jagdish Chandra, CGSC, with Ms. Maanya Saxena, Advocate
• Other Counsel: Mr. Kapil Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No. 50; Mr. Vakul Sharad Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No. 117; Mr. Murari Tiwari, Mr. Rahul Kumar and Ms. Indira Murthy, Advocates; Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No. 107

[Read Order]