Delhi HC directs Special Committee on plea for more BCD polling centres

The Delhi High Court directed a petition for multiple polling centres for the 2026 BCD elections to be treated as a representation before the Special Committee. The court cited a Supreme Court order placing such matters under the committee's purview.

The Delhi High Court has directed that a writ petition seeking multiple polling centres for the upcoming Bar Council of Delhi (BCD) elections be treated as a representation before the Special Committee constituted under Section 8A of the Advocates Act, 1961. The Court instructed the Committee to consider and decide the representation expeditiously, preferably within three weeks.

Plea for Multiple Polling Venues

The petition, filed by advocate Surendar Kumar, sought directions to ensure that polling for the BCD elections scheduled for 13 and 14 February 2026 is conducted not only at the Delhi High Court but also across major District Courts in Dwarka, Tis Hazari, Saket and Karkardooma. The petitioner argued that with more than 1,05,000 eligible voters, a single polling venue results in overcrowding, long queues, security concerns and difficulty for advocates with matters listed in various courts.

Court Cites Supreme Court Mandate

Justice Mini Pushkarna, while hearing the matter, stated that the Supreme Court has already passed comprehensive directions governing State Bar Council elections and has constituted a Special Committee for Delhi, headed by the Additional Solicitor General of India, with two other senior members, to oversee all aspects of the BCD election process.

The Court recorded that the Supreme Court's order expressly provides that individual grievances relating to elections must be placed before the concerned High-Powered Election Committee or Special Committee, and its decisions may thereafter only be challenged before the High-Powered Supervisory Committee not before any civil court or High Court.

Taking note of this framework, the Court held that the issues raised by the petitioner fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the Special Committee. It thus directed that the writ petition be treated as a representation and decided on its merits within three weeks.

With these directions, the petition and pending applications were disposed of.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)