President of Mumbai City Civil Court Bar Association Ravi Jadhav along with several District Bar Association Presidents across Maharashtra and numerous members of the Bar, have filed a petition seeking recall of the per incuriam order passed by the Supervisory Committee.
A Three-Judge Bench of the Bar Council of India Election Tribunal, categorically set aside the entire election process even at an advanced stage where ballot papers had already been printed and published, and directed the holding of a fresh election de novo, holding that the appointment of the Secretary of the Bar Council as Returning Officer was a serious violation of the norms laid down by the Bar Council of India and that in the absence of an impartial Returning Officer or observer, the entire election would stand vitiated.
Recently, the Supervisory Committee, headed by Justice (Retd.) Sudhanshu Dhulia, categorically held that the appointment of Bar Council Secretary Sharad Bagul as Returning Officer was illegal and in violation of the rules, and accordingly cancelled the same, while accepting the objections raised by Advocates Sanjeet Desai, Ravi Jadhav, Prakash Jagtap, along with their counsel, Advocate Nilesh Ojha, and others.
A major controversy has erupted over the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa (BCMG) elections, with serious allegations that the entire election process stands vitiated due to the illegal appointment of the Secretary as Returning Officer, in clear violation of statutory rules and binding judicial precedents.
Relying on the binding judgment of the Three-Judge Bench Election Tribunal of the Bar Council of India (dated 17.04.2018) and authoritative rulings of the Cionstitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, including A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India (1969) 2 SCC 262, the petitioners have asserted that any election conducted under a biased or interested Returning Officer is void from inception.
Advocate Ravi Jadhav, President of the Mumbai City Civil Court Bar Association, along with several District Bar Association Presidents across Maharashtra and numerous members of the Bar, has moved a petition seeking:
- Setting aside of the entire election process
- Conduct of fresh elections de novo in accordance with law
- Recall of the Supervisory Committee’s order dated 17.03.2026, being per incuriam and legally unsustainable
The petition highlights that the Secretary of the Bar Council, who has worked closely with several contesting candidates, was appointed as Returning Officer—giving rise to a clear conflict of interest and reasonable likelihood of bias.
Law is Clear: Entire Election Liable to be Set Aside if Returning Officer Appointment is Illegal
The legal position on the issue is no longer res integra and stands conclusively settled by binding precedents of the Bar Council of India Election Tribunal, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
A Three-Judge Bench of the Bar Council of India Election Tribunal, in its landmark order dated 17.04.2018 concerning the Karnataka Bar Council elections, categorically set aside the entire election process even at an advanced stage where ballot papers had already been printed and published, and directed the holding of a fresh election de novo. The Tribunal made scathing observations, holding that the appointment of the Secretary of the Bar Council as Returning Officer was a serious violation of the norms laid down by the Bar Council of India and that in the absence of an impartial Returning Officer or observer, the entire election would stand vitiated. It further emphasized that the requirement of appointing a retired High Court Judge as Returning Officer or Observer was introduced specifically to ensure free and fair elections, and any deviation therefrom amounts to violation of Supreme Court-approved election norms, thereby rendering the entire process unsustainable.
A similar and consistent view has been taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Uttamrao Kishanrao Jadhav v. State Co-operative Election Authority (2017 SCC OnLine Bom), wherein it was unequivocally held that if the appointment of the Returning Officer is in breach of mandatory statutory provisions, the entire election programme and all consequential steps taken pursuant thereto stand vitiated and non est in the eyes of law. The Hon’ble Court further clarified that an illegal appointment cannot be validated by subsequent approvals and that every action taken by such an ineligible Returning Officer, starting from publication of the election programme to declaration of results, is void, necessitating quashing of the entire election and directing fresh elections in accordance with law.
Despite such clear and binding legal position, the Supervisory Committee, by its order dated 17.03.2026, has taken a view contrary to the settled law, ignoring binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, and the Three-Judge Bench Election Tribunal of the Bar Council of India. It is well settled that any decision rendered in ignorance of binding authorities even of coordinate Benches of the Tribunal and authority is per incuriam and lacks binding force. [ Hari Singh v. State of Haryana (1993) 3 SCC 114, Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd. (2010) 13 SCC 336, State of Bihar v. Kalika Kuer (2003) 5 SCC 448, and Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India v. Vanashakti (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2474)].
The Constitution Bench in Shah Faesal v. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 1 has further clarified that a judgment rendered in ignorance of binding law or statutory provisions is per incuriam and does not have precedential value.
In view of the above settled legal position, it is evident that the impugned election process stands vitiated in law, the order dated 17.03.2026 passed by the Supervisory Committee is non-binding and liable to be recalled, and the only legally sustainable course is to annul the entire election and direct the conduct of a fresh election de novo under an independent and impartial Returning Officer, so as to restore the integrity, fairness, and credibility of the electoral process.
Serious Allegations Against Supervisory Committee: Ignoring Binding Precedents and Material Evidence and applying irrelevant de facto doctorine.
Serious allegations have been raised against the Supervisory Committee for non-consideration of relevant material, binding precedents, and crucial facts, thereby rendering its order dated 17.03.2026 legally unsustainable. The petition specifically asserts that the video recording of the hearing dated 17.03.2026 clearly demonstrates that Hon’ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Sudhanshu Dhulia himself acknowledged that the Secretary of the Bar Council could not be expected to act fairly, having worked as an employee under several Bar Council members who are presently contesting the election. This observation goes to the very root of bias, conflict of interest, and fairness of the electoral process, and directly impacts the validity of the election.
However, despite such a crucial and material observation emerging during the course of hearing, the same has not been reflected in the final order dated 17.03.2026, raising serious concerns regarding non-application of mind and omission of vital findings. It is further alleged that binding precedents were specifically cited by Adv. Nilesh Ojha petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Ravi Jadhav, both through detailed oral arguments and through electronic communications including email, which are duly corroborated by digital evidence and video recordings. Yet, the Supervisory Committee has failed to consider or even refer to these binding authorities in its order, nor has it assigned any reasons for rejecting the settled legal principles relied upon.
Instead, the Committee has proceeded to misapply the de facto doctrine, which, as per settled law, cannot be invoked to validate an election process tainted by bias and illegality. Legal experts emphasize that the doctrine is limited in scope and applies only to acts performed under the colour of lawful authority; it does not extend to situations where the authority itself is compromised by bias, conflict of interest, or lack of impartiality, which strikes at the root of legitimacy. In such cases, the entire process stands vitiated and cannot be salvaged by invoking the de facto doctrine.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that orders passed in ignorance of binding precedents or by overlooking relevant material are vitiated in law.
In Harshit Agarwal v. Union of India, (2021) 2 SCC 710, the Court categorically ruled that a decision stands vitiated if relevant considerations are ignored or irrelevant factors are taken into account.
Similarly, in Union of India v. K.S. Subramanian, (1976) 3 SCC 677, it was held that if a court departs from binding precedent, it must give cogent reasons, failing which the decision cannot be sustained.
In State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85, the Hon’ble Supreme Court strongly deprecated the tendency of courts and authorities to ignore settled law, holding that such conduct amounts to judicial adventurism and renders the order unsustainable under Article 141 of the Constitution.
In the case of Union of India v. K.S. Subramanian, (1976) 3 SCC 677, it is ruled as under;
“12. …. If, however, the High Court was of opinion that the views expressed by larger benches of this Court were not applicable to the facts of the instant case it should have said so giving reasons supporting its point of view.”
In the case State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85, it is ruled as under;
“15. It is the solemn duty of the court to apply the correct law without waiting for an objection to be raised by a party, especially when the law stands well settled. Any departure, if permissible, has to be for reasons discussed, of the case falling under a defined exception, duly discussed after noticing the relevant law […]
- We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engg. Works (P) Ltd. [Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engg. Works (P) Ltd., (1997) 6 SCC 450] , observing: (SCC p. 463, para 32)
“32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops.”
- The impugned orders are therefore contrary to the law laid down by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution and unsustainable. They are therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed.”
In the case of Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2985 it was ruled as under;
“6. We are surprised, not a little, that the strong reminders issued by this Court from time to time have had little effect on the high courts in the country and that decisions, binding under Article 141 of the Constitution, are being persistently ignored. It has been stressed time and again over the years and we feel pained to observe, once more, that neglect/omission/refusal to abide by binding precedents augurs ill for the health of the system. Not only does it tantamount to disservice to the institution of the judiciary but also affects the administration of justice. For a learned Judge to deviate from the laid down standards would be to betray the trust reposed in him by the nation. We sincerely hope that learned Judges of the high courts while being careful and cautious will remain committed to the service of the litigants, for whom only they exist, as well as the oath of office that they have taken so that, in future, we are not presented with another case of similar nature to deal with.
- It cannot be gainsaid that in today’s world, particularly when more and more people are showing interest in court proceedings and there is wide coverage thereof on social media platforms, the presiding officers of courts are equally at the centre of attention as the controversy that is involved and the manner of its resolution. The society expects every Judge of a high court, so to say, to be a model of rectitude, an epitome of unimpeachable integrity and unwavering principles, a champion of moral excellence, and an embodiment of professionalism, who can consistently deliver work of high-quality guaranteeing justice. Although, on the whole, the weight of work on learned Judges of the high courts across the country is immense and the Judges have also been performing commendably despite various odds, instances such as the one under consideration, which we view as nothing more than an aberration, bring disrepute to the judicial system of the country and show the entire judiciary in poor light. This, in our opinion, could have well been avoided with a little bit of care and caution, and deference to the decisions on the point by this Court.”
That, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harshit Agarwal Vs. Union of India (2021) 2 SCC 710, has ruled that, if irrelevant considerations are taken into account for reaching the decision or relevant considerations have been ignored, the decision stands vitiated as the decision maker has misdirected himself in law. It is ruled as under;
“10. Judicial review of administrative action is permissible on grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. An administrative decision is flawed if it is illegal. ……………….. If irrelevant considerations are taken into account for reaching the decision or relevant considerations have been ignored, the decision stands vitiated as the decision maker has misdirected himself in law.”
In light of these settled principles, the petition contends that the impugned order dated 17.03.2026 is vitiated on multiple grounds, including non-consideration of material evidence, failure to apply binding precedents, misapplication of legal doctrines, and violation of principles of natural justice, and is therefore liable to be set aside in its entirety.
