SCAORA Elections: Supreme Court Provisionally Allows Newly Registered Advocates-On-Record To Vote

The Supreme Court issued an interim order permitting nearly 205 newly registered Advocates-on-Record (AORs) to cast their votes provisionally in the upcoming SCAORA elections.

The Court passed the direction while hearing a writ petition filed by Ritu Rajkumari, which challenged the exclusion of these new professionals from the voter list.

While the Court granted the right to vote, it clarified that these new AORs—who cleared the 2025 examination—are not entitled to contest the elections for office-bearer positions.

The Bench further suggested that the Election Committee explore postponing the polls by one week to facilitate membership formalities and allow candidates to interact with the expanded electorate.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "Issue notice, returnable on...The respondents may file their reply affidavit, if any. Meanwhile, the Advocates-on-Record who were registered on 16 April 2026 shall be permitted to cast their votes provisionally. However, they shall not be entitled to contest the election...Alternatively, the Election Committee may explore the desirability of postponing the election for one week to complete the formalities of membership enrollment for the petitioners, namely the newly qualified Advocates-on-Record."

Advocate for the Petitioner submitted, "These are new Advocates-on-Record, Your Lordship. They are... they are just willing to..."

CJI Kant said, "Why are you before the Court? You see, what kind of solidarity and professionalism is it showing that you are here before the passing of a court proceeding? Why don’t you resolve this yourselves while sitting together?"

Advocate for the Petitioner replied, "Actually, Your Lordship, that should have been the position ideally. Since it was not done, that is why we are here now."

Advocate for the SCAORA said, "There is another issue. I am not opposing the prayer, but the whole problem, My Lord, is that most of the contestants do not know these people. They are just new entrants; with 207 people as a lot, nobody has any idea who they are."

Advocate for the petitioner said, "How can he say that? There may be something on the part of the Supreme Court also. This is a shocking submission, Your Lordship. I took the examination... they are [under the purview] of the Election Commission."

Another Lady Advocate for SCAORA, "This is what I am saying. No, Lordship, they are not yet members of the association. For them to be members of the association, the Executive Committee must actually verify and scrutinize their membership. Lordship, they are yet to be members. And since they are not members..."

CJI Kant said, "An issue of constitutional interpretation has arisen. Therefore, we will have to resolve it."

Advocate for Respondent said, "Anybody claiming they should be included in the voter list will come by way of an Article 32 petition. Therefore, the Court just want to see the process of membership. It is all written in our constitution."

Justice Bagchi remarked, "They are on the threshold of being inducted as members. Technically, they are not members, but for all practical purposes, they have complied with all the requisites for membership. In that situation, if we are permitting them to vote, there are some submissions made that they should be given some time for interaction because the number of voters will suddenly increase. That is up to the Election Committee to decide."

In a lighter vein, CJI Kant said, "I told my brother that SCAORA is rather more progressive than the SCBA."

The relief benefited approximately 205 new AORs who passed the 2025 examinations and saw their results published in February. The bench noted that these individuals should not lose their voting rights due to minor administrative delays. The Court remarked that the formal induction on April 16 occurred late only because of "administrative exigencies," and Justice Bagchi added that the candidates had practically met all requirements for membership.

The advocate for the Petitioner argued that the results were available in February and that the candidates had paid their membership fees on time. He emphasized that the only hurdle was the formal induction ceremony, which took place just after the SCAORA membership deadline. In response, the Advocate for SCAORA requested an extension of the election date to ensure candidates had enough time to campaign to this new group of voters.

Accordingly, the Court granted interim relief to the Petitioner.

Cause Title: Ritu Rajkumari v. Election Committee [W.P.(C) No. 549/2026]