The recently held Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) election has been challenged in the Delhi High Court by a group of advocates..The recently held Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) election has been challenged in the Delhi High Court by a group of advocates..The election has been challenged on the ground that it was conducted through electronic voting machines (EVMs) and not through ballot papers as provided for in the Memorandum of Association and therefore, the election results were invalid..The suit has been filed by Advocate Anis Suhrawardy and three other lawyers practising in the Supreme Court.The advocates are being represented by Senior Advocate Rakesh Tiku along with Advocates Puneet Aggarwal and Vijay Pratap Singh..Justice Sunil Gaur of the Delhi High Court has issued a notice to SCBA President P.H. Parekh and other office-bearers..According to Hindu, the plaintiffs said, “Moreover, in the present case, the EVM was reported to be faulty and defective. None of safeguards required to be taken for testing the machine had been taken. The machine did not correctly record the votes cast and was also open to tampering”..The Plaintiffs further argued that if the election was to be conducted through EVM, the Memorandum of Association ought to have been amended but it was not done so..The Plaintiffs have sought a declaration that the election was illegal and void and to restrain the office-bearers from functioning until the disposal of the suit and to hold fresh election through secret ballot..The matter has now been posted to June 6..In the May 11 election, Senior Advocate P.H. Parekh was elected as the President of the Supreme SCBA defeating another Senior Advocate Adish C. Aggarwala by a margin of just two votes. The former SCBA president, Ram Jethmalani, was also defeated..Soon after the election results were announced, Ram Jethmalani had also lodged a written complaint to the election committee alleging that there had been some form of corruption prior to the election and the logistic arrangements for conducting the poll on the day of the election were extremely inadequate.
The recently held Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) election has been challenged in the Delhi High Court by a group of advocates..The recently held Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) election has been challenged in the Delhi High Court by a group of advocates..The election has been challenged on the ground that it was conducted through electronic voting machines (EVMs) and not through ballot papers as provided for in the Memorandum of Association and therefore, the election results were invalid..The suit has been filed by Advocate Anis Suhrawardy and three other lawyers practising in the Supreme Court.The advocates are being represented by Senior Advocate Rakesh Tiku along with Advocates Puneet Aggarwal and Vijay Pratap Singh..Justice Sunil Gaur of the Delhi High Court has issued a notice to SCBA President P.H. Parekh and other office-bearers..According to Hindu, the plaintiffs said, “Moreover, in the present case, the EVM was reported to be faulty and defective. None of safeguards required to be taken for testing the machine had been taken. The machine did not correctly record the votes cast and was also open to tampering”..The Plaintiffs further argued that if the election was to be conducted through EVM, the Memorandum of Association ought to have been amended but it was not done so..The Plaintiffs have sought a declaration that the election was illegal and void and to restrain the office-bearers from functioning until the disposal of the suit and to hold fresh election through secret ballot..The matter has now been posted to June 6..In the May 11 election, Senior Advocate P.H. Parekh was elected as the President of the Supreme SCBA defeating another Senior Advocate Adish C. Aggarwala by a margin of just two votes. The former SCBA president, Ram Jethmalani, was also defeated..Soon after the election results were announced, Ram Jethmalani had also lodged a written complaint to the election committee alleging that there had been some form of corruption prior to the election and the logistic arrangements for conducting the poll on the day of the election were extremely inadequate.
