Nagpur: In a significant directive aimed at ensuring electoral integrity within the legal fraternity, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court on Thursday ordered the High Court Bar Association (HCBA), Nagpur, to strictly implement the ‘One Bar, One Vote’ principle before conducting its forthcoming elections.
The interim order was passed by a division bench comprising Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Rajnish Vyas while hearing a writ petition (No. 6341/2025) filed by senior counsel Mohan Sudame and other lawyers. The petitioners sought enforcement of the Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling in the SC Bar Association vs B.D. Kaushik case, which mandates that an advocate registered with multiple bar associations can exercise voting rights in only one of them.
Gold Rate
18 Oct 2025
The bench permitted the petitioners to implead all bar associations across Vidarbha and make specific amendments to their petition for better clarity. It also granted liberty to the HCBA to reschedule the election process if necessary, but restricted any extension to a maximum of 15 days. The matter has been posted for the next hearing on November 24.
The issue gained traction after reports suggested that nearly 60% of voters in previous HCBA elections were not regular practitioners at the Nagpur Bench but hailed from districts such as Akola, Amravati, Buldhana, and Chandrapur. The petitioners alleged that many advocates obtain temporary memberships before elections, influencing results despite having little connection to the association’s daily functioning.
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioners argued that allowing advocates to vote in multiple bar associations undermines fair representation and violates the Supreme Court’s binding directions. The bench concurred, stressing that compliance with the apex court’s order was mandatory to preserve “discipline and sanctity” in the functioning of court-related bodies.
“We cannot wait for a breach to occur. Once the Supreme Court’s directions are in force, they must be implemented at the earliest,” the bench observed.
Appearing for the HCBA, senior counsel Sunil Manohar and advocate Bhanudas Kulkarni (for the election committee) sought phased implementation, citing logistical hurdles. Advocate Shreerang Bhandarkar, representing intervenors, argued that the timing of the petition could delay the election process. However, the court rejected these objections, asserting that adherence to the Supreme Court’s mandate was non-negotiable.
The bench further directed the HCBA election committee to obtain written declarations from every member confirming that they would vote exclusively in the HCBA elections and refrain from voting in any other bar association for a period of three years. Any member found violating this undertaking would face permanent disqualification after a seven-day notice.
