Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Notice For Election In Alipore Bar Association

The Calcutta High Court noted that to ensure transparency in the Bar Association Elections, the voters' list must be made public well in advance of the election notice, effectively marking the practical commencement of the electoral proceedings. The High Court set aside the notice issued for the conduct of election in the Alipore Bar Association.

An Alipore Bar Association member raised concerns about election irregularities led by the current Executive Committee, citing a delayed notice on December 14, 2023. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition.

The Bench of Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya observed, “A valid voter, to cast his vote and/or to participate in the nomination process, has to have a clear idea as to who are the exact voters who would be voting in the election. Such a transparency can only be attained if the voters‟ list is published sufficiently prior to the issuance of the election notice, which is for all practical purposes the commencement of the electoral process. Unless a clear voters‟ list is there prior to the issuance of the notice, no valid objection worth the name can be raised in that regard”.

Advocates Subir Sanyal and Lokenath Chatterjee appeared for the Petitioner and Advocates Suman Ghosh, Prasun Kumar Dutta, Debabrata Saha Roy and Chandreyi Alam appeared for the Respondents.

The Alipore Bar Association member raised concerns about election irregularities under  Bar Association Rules (Rules) by the current Executive Committee, citing a delayed notice on December 14, 2023. The petitioner argued that the timeline for filing nominations (December 15-19, 2023) was insufficient, emphasizing the rushed election process. The petitioner also criticized the high cost of the voters' list publication and asserted that non-compliance with previous court directives in the case WPA No. 5250 of 2022 invalidated the election notice.

The Bench emphasized the importance of transparency in the election process, noting that for effective challenges and rectifications to the voters' list, it is essential to publish a list of eligible voters well in advance of the commencement of the election process. This ensures that voters have sufficient time to review and address any discrepancies.

Conversely, the Bench noted that to accurately represent the current status of eligible voters, the list should be published in proximity to the actual election date. The Bench highlighted the need for a balanced approach in the timing of voters' list publication to facilitate both scrutiny and accuracy in the electoral process.

Furthermore, the Bench noted the crucial importance of transparency in the electoral process, observing that a valid voter needs a clear understanding of who the exact voters are in an election. This transparency can only be achieved if the voters' list is published well before the issuance of the election notice, which marks the practical commencement of the electoral process. The Court noted that without a clear voters' list preceding the notice, valid objections cannot be raised. 

“Publication of the voters‟ list subsequent to the publication of election notice or simultaneously therewith is absurd, since it does not leave any opportunity to challenge the same”, the Bench added. 

The Court observed that the voters' list should be published at least one month before the issuance of the election notice, marking the beginning of the electoral process. This one-month cutoff serves as a sufficient safeguard to ensure the contemporary nature of the voters' list, accommodating potential exigencies under Rules 4 and 6 of the Rules. The Court observed that such transparency may not be present in members' lists, which are published at larger intervals and may not necessarily include the names of eligible and valid voters.

The Bench noted, “The one month cut-off date is a sufficient safeguard to ensure that the voters‟ list is sufficiently contemporary to take into account the exigencies which may crop up under Rules 4 and 6 as pointed out above. The said transparency may not be available in the members‟ lists, which are published at larger intervals and may not necessarily reflect the names of the eligible and valid voters”

The Bench observed that the executive committee, in the contested notice, explicitly treated the voters' list as distinct from the members' list. This distinction was evident in the clause specifying that the voters' list would be published two days after the notice, on December 14, 2023, at a cost of Rs.5,000/- each. The Bench emphasized that once such a provision for a separate voters' list is incorporated in the notice, the executive committee and/or the chief electoral officer cannot retract from this position and argue that the voters' list and members' list are equivalent.

Additionally, the Court noted that the short timeframe of seven days for submitting nomination papers is insufficient time for individuals intending to participate in the election, either as voters or candidates, to adequately prepare or make themselves available.

However, the Court allowed the existing executive committee of the Bar Association to initiate fresh proceedings for holding the next elections for 2023-2024 per the law and the court's observations.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition and set aside the notice of December 12, 2023.

Cause Title: Sankarshan Majumder v State of West Bengal and others

Click here to read/download Judgment