It is significant to note that the Three-Judge Bench Election Tribunal of the Bar Council of India had, in a similar matter earlier, cancelled the entire election process and directed fresh elections after reprinting ballot papers.
In the present case, despite the existence of serious criminal cases pending against Adv. Sudeep Pasbola, which rendered him ineligible under the rules, his nomination was accepted by Sharad Bagul. A petition has therefore been filed seeking cancellation of the entire election on the ground that the process stands vitiated due to the biased and discriminatory conduct of the Returning Officer.
Meanwhile, the Supervisory Committee headed by Justice (Retd.) Sudhanshu Dhulia has also declared the appointment of Sharad Bagul as illegal. As per the Bar Council rules, the Secretary cannot act as Returning Officer; only a retired High Court Judge or a District/Sessions Judge is eligible to be appointed to the said position.
Following this, Dr. Ajay Nathani, Retired Principal District Judge, has been appointed as the new Returning Officer.
Sharad Bagul, while simultaneously holding the positions of Secretary of the Bar Council and Returning Officer, is alleged to have misused his authority to favour certain candidates. Video recordings as well as documentary evidence have surfaced indicating that he acted in a biased and discriminatory manner to extend undue advantage to specific members.
Even after the election programme was officially notified, he permitted ineligible candidates such as Adv. Sudeep Pasbola, as well as former members whose tenure had already expired but who were contesting the elections, to initiate and continue disciplinary proceedings against advocates who were themselves voters. This, it is alleged, provided such candidates with an unlawful opportunity to influence and manipulate voters.
Serious allegations have been made that such actions enabled the concerned candidates to exert pressure on voters and secure electoral advantage through illegal means. It has further been stated that documentary evidence, official notices, and video recordings substantiating these allegations are available on record.
In view of these developments, the entire election process is alleged to be tainted, biased, and legally unsustainable, thereby strengthening the demand for its cancellation.
The matter has gained further momentum following complaints filed by Adv. Ravi Jadhav, President of the Bombay City Civil Court Bar Association, and Secretary Adv. Syed Asif Naqvi.
As per the Bar Council of India Rules, any person against whom a criminal case involving punishment of seven years or more, or any disciplinary proceeding, is pending within the nine months preceding the election notification, stands disqualified from contesting the election.
According to the petition, DC Case No. 380 of 2023, filed by Adv. Charanjeet Chandrapal against Adv. Sudeep Pasbola and others, remained pending till February 2026, thereby rendering them clearly ineligible under the rules.
Further, serious allegations have been made regarding the criminal antecedents of Adv. Sudeep Pasbola. It is alleged that, in collusion with Sharad Bagul, he was involved in preparing backdated, forged, fabricated, and bogus Bar Council documents, and using them as genuine through false affidavits, thereby committing fraud upon the Bar Council.
In this regard, a criminal writ petition bearing No. 6393 of 2025 (Partho Sarkar vs. Sudeep Pasbola and others) is stated to be pending before the Hon’ble High Court, seeking action under IPC Sections 466, 420, 409, 192, 193, 199, 200, 120-B, 34, and 107.
Additionally, in connection with the Disha Salian matter, proceedings under IPC Sections 192 and 193 are also stated to be pending on account of filing false affidavits and relying upon overruled judicial precedents.
In the aforesaid circumstances, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770, and Krishnadatt Awasthy v. State of M.P., (2025) 7 SCC 545, it is submitted that Shri Sharad Bagul stood disqualified from participating in any decision-making process, particularly in a quasi-judicial electoral role.
As per the said judgments and the governing rules, it was incumbent upon him to disclose his conflict of interest and recuse himself from the office of Returning Officer in order to ensure fairness and integrity of the election process. However, instead of complying with these binding legal principles, he proceeded to accept and continue in the office of Returning Officer in disregard of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and exercised his powers in a biased and partisan manner.
Such conduct amounts not merely to a procedural irregularity but constitutes a serious abuse of authority, thereby undermining the rule of law and the sanctity of the electoral process. Accordingly, it has been demanded that stringent legal and disciplinary action be initiated against him.
Despite the pendency of such serious cases, the then Returning Officer Shri Sharad Bagul failed to reject the nominations of Adv. Sudeep Pasbola and certain other candidates. On the contrary, relying upon the very same rules, he rejected the nominations of Adv. Jayashree Patil and Adv. Mukesh Pandey. This clearly establishes selective application of rules, arbitrariness, and manifest bias, as alleged in the petition.
It has further been contended that when the very appointment of the Returning Officer is illegal and void, any actions taken by such authority—including scrutiny and acceptance or rejection of nominations—are rendered invalid. Consequently, the entire election process stands vitiated from inception and is liable to be declared illegal.
Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Uttamrao Kishanrao Jadhav v. State Cooperative Election Authority (2017), wherein it has been clearly held that if the appointment of the Returning Officer is contrary to rules, the entire election programme and all actions taken thereunder are non est in law, i.e., legally non-existent.
In view of the above, it has been emphatically prayed that the entire Bar Council election process be cancelled and that fresh elections be conducted in a fair, independent, and legally compliant manner. It has further been sought that appropriate legal and administrative action be taken against former Returning Officer Shri Sharad Bagul.
