Allahabad HC Postpones Raebareli Bar Treasurer Poll After Advocate's Name Dropped From Voters' List Without Reason

The Lucknow Bench directed the Central Bar Association, Raebareli to hear a Life Member's objections before the Treasurer election, after his name was silently dropped from the 2026 voters' list.

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on 23 July 2026 disposed of a writ petition filed by Advocate Anand Kumar Gupta, who had been a Life Member of the Central Bar Association, Civil Court, Raebareli since 2008, after his name was abruptly deleted from the association's 2026 electoral roll without any reason or hearing. A Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary stopped short of stalling the broader election but postponed the contest for the post of Treasurer — the specific post Gupta intended to contest — by one week, to 1 August 2026. The bench directed the Elders Committee to receive Gupta's objections, hear him, and pass a reasoned order before the rescheduled poll.

An Advocate of 28 Years, Dropped Without a Word

Gupta enrolled with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on 29 March 1998 (Registration No. UP01208/1998) and holds a valid Certificate of Practice (No. R1-115750 of 2025). He has practised before the District and Sessions Court, Raebareli, and has been a Life Member of the Central Bar Association since 2008. His name had featured in the association's electoral rolls continuously from 1999 to 2025. In that period he served as Treasurer for the terms 2000–2002, 2002–2004, and 2008–2009, and as Senior Executive Member for 2020–2022. He was the runner-up for Treasurer in the 2025 elections.

The outgoing Executive Committee forwarded the list of eligible voters for 2026 to the Elders Committee on 8 July 2026. Gupta's name appeared at Serial No. 1563 on that list. When the Provisional Voters' List was published on 13 July 2026, his name had been removed — without any reason assigned. He filed detailed objections pointing to his Life Membership, continuous practice, and documentary evidence of past participation. The Elders Committee neither granted him a hearing nor passed any reasoned order. The final voters' list published on 15 July 2026 also excluded him.

The Legal Argument: Article 14 and Natural Justice

Gupta's counsel, Saksham Agarwal (with Anupriya Agarwal and Shailendra Singh Rajawat), argued that the deletion was wholly arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Central Bar Association is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is bound, the petitioner submitted, to conduct elections in accordance with its registered bye-laws, applicable Model Bye-laws, and principles of natural justice. There was, it was submitted, no provision under which a member with an unblemished record — valid enrolment, a current Certificate of Practice, no outstanding dues, and active pending cases — could have his name deleted from the electoral roll. The petitioner also raised the doctrine of legitimate expectation: over 25 years of consistent inclusion in electoral rolls, he argued, could not be frustrated without any change in facts or law.

The petitioner alleged that the deletion was mala fide, designed to give an undue advantage to favoured candidates for the Treasurer post, which is unreserved and for which Gupta remained fully eligible.

The Bar Association's Position

The respondent Bar Association, represented by Subhash Chandra Pandey (with Birendra Pratap Singh appearing on record by vakalatnama filed on the day of hearing), countered that Gupta was not a regular practitioner before the court to which the association is attached, and therefore could not claim legitimate membership. The association also contended that Gupta had filed no objections to the provisional electoral roll published on 13 July 2026, and the Elders Committee had rightly proceeded to publish the final list.

Counsel for the Bar Association then made a significant concession: if Gupta furnished five vakalatnamas from the preceding two years along with his objection, the Elders Committee would consider and decide that objection favourably, provided it was found to be in accordance with applicable rules.

A Fast-Track Election Schedule Under the Court's Eye

The court took note of the compressed timeline the association had set for its 2026 elections. The final voters' list was published at 5:00 PM on 15 July 2026. Nomination papers were distributed the next morning. Filing closed on 17 and 18 July. Scrutiny of nominations took place on the evening of 18 July. The final list of candidates was published on 20 July. Polling was scheduled for 25 July, with counting on 26 July.

The bench did not express a formal view on whether this pace was appropriate, but it placed the timeline on record. It observed that it was “conscious of the law that the election process cannot be stalled at this belated stage,” but equally noted the tearing hurry in finalising the electoral roll and conducting elections, and the absence of adequate time for objections.

How the Bench Reasoned

The court declined to enter the contested factual question of whether Gupta had or had not filed objections to the provisional roll. What was undeniable, the bench found, was that he had been a Life Member of the association since 2008, and that his name had been abruptly deleted from the roll even though it had appeared at Serial No. 1563 in the list forwarded by the Executive Committee as recently as 8 July 2026.

Given the concession by Bar Association counsel, the bench directed Gupta to file his objection with all relevant documents and five vakalatnamas from the preceding two years within two days. The Elders Committee was then required to consider those objections, afford Gupta a hearing, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.

To give that process practical meaning, the court — with the consent of both sides — left the main election undisturbed but postponed only the Treasurer contest by one week. If the Elders Committee found Gupta to be an eligible voter, it was made clear he could also be permitted to file his nomination and contest for Treasurer.

The bench expressly stated that the order was passed in the peculiar facts of the case and on the concessions made by counsel, and was not to be treated as a precedent in any other matter.

Order

The writ petition was disposed of on 23 July 2026 with the following directions:

• Anand Kumar Gupta is granted liberty to file his objection, along with all supporting documents and five vakalatnamas from the preceding two years, within two days.
• The Elders Committee of the Central Bar Association, Raebareli shall consider those objections, afford him a hearing, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
• The main election scheduled for 25 July 2026 is not stalled.
• The election for the post of Treasurer alone is postponed to 1 August 2026.
• If the Elders Committee finds Gupta to be an eligible voter, he shall also be permitted to file his nomination and contest for Treasurer.