Supreme Court Allows 205 New AORs to Vote Provisionally in SCAORA Elections, Bars Them from Contesting

April 27, 2026 : The Supreme Court of India has granted interim relief permitting around 205 newly registered Advocates-on-Record (AORs) to cast their votes provisionally in the upcoming elections of the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association.

The direction came in a writ petition filed by Ritu Rajkumari challenging the exclusion of these newly qualified AORs from the electoral roll. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified that while the new AORs would be allowed to vote, they would not be eligible to contest for any office-bearer positions in the elections.

The Court observed that these AORs, who cleared the 2025 examination and were formally registered on April 16, 2026, had substantially complied with the requirements for membership. It noted that their formal induction was delayed due to administrative reasons and that they should not be deprived of voting rights on that account.

Issuing notice in the matter, the Court stated that the concerned AORs would be allowed to vote provisionally, subject to the outcome of the petition. At the same time, it suggested that the Election Committee consider postponing the elections by a week to complete membership formalities and allow candidates adequate time to engage with the expanded voter base.

During the hearing, the Bench expressed concern over the lack of internal resolution within the association. CJI Kant questioned why the issue had reached the Court, emphasizing the need for professional solidarity and dialogue within the body.

Counsel appearing for SCAORA raised practical concerns, stating that candidates were unfamiliar with the newly added voters and that their inclusion could impact the fairness of the electoral process. It was also argued that these AORs were not yet formally inducted as members, as their membership applications were pending scrutiny by the Executive Committee.

Addressing this, Justice Bagchi noted that while the AORs may not have been technically inducted, they had fulfilled all substantive requirements and were on the verge of membership. In such circumstances, denying them voting rights would be unjustified.

The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that the examination results had been declared in February and that all membership fees had been duly paid within time. The only delay, he argued, was the formal induction process, which occurred after the membership cut-off date.

Recognizing the competing concerns, the Court left it to the Election Committee to decide whether a short postponement would be appropriate to ensure a fair electoral process.

The matter has been listed for further hearing.

Case Reference: Ritu Rajkumari v. Election Committee