Voting in the third phase of the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council elections was abruptly halted in Lucknow on 27 January 2026, after a group of advocates raised vociferous objections to alleged irregularities at the polling station located near the Lucknow High Court.
What was meant to be a routine continuation of the state’s multi-phase election rapidly disintegrated into chaos when lawyers claimed that ballot papers, despite being sealed in envelopes, carried pre-marked ticks against certain candidates’ names, suggesting possible tampering.
The protest intensified as advocates surrounded polling tables, tore pamphlets, overturned chairs and loudly demanded accountability. With tensions rising, security personnel were deployed to the scene to prevent any escalation.
By about 4 pm, election officials, including the Returning Officer and supervising retired judges, were compelled to suspend the polling process indefinitely.
Senior candidate Paresh Mishra criticised the conduct of the poll, labelling it “the first time I’ve seen mismanagement on such a large scale in Bar Council elections,” underscoring the depth of dissatisfaction among participating legal professionals.
Election Officials, Judges Promise Inquiry and Fresh Schedule
Election authorities, including Justice (Retd) A.K. Tripathi and Justice (Retd) Surendra Singh, who were supervising proceedings under a Supreme Court-mandated oversight committee, confirmed that the poll in Lucknow had been called off and would be rescheduled following consultations with all stakeholders.
A joint notification by the observers indicated that the decision was taken to restore order and ensure the integrity of the electoral process.
Authorities emphasised that while disruptions occurred in Lucknow, the broader third phase of voting across other districts was not immediately affected.
However, in Lucknow itself-a district with thousands of eligible advocates and a significant bar community-the disorder was deemed too severe to allow the process to continue.
The Supreme Court-monitored election committee has previously been tasked with overseeing the Uttar Pradesh Bar Council polls following long delays that saw the top court intervene and direct elections to be completed by specific deadlines.
Earlier directives from the Supreme Court had underscored the need for transparent and timely conduct of all state bar council elections, citing a trust deficit and ordering retired high court judges to supervise them.
At the venue, police presence remained steady after the suspension, but officials stressed there were no major injuries. Appeals were made for calm and for advocates to refrain from further disorder while the review process unfolds.
Historic Context and Broader Election Background
The Uttar Pradesh Bar Council elections are being conducted in multiple phases due to the sheer size of the state’s legal fraternity.
The first two phases occurred earlier this month, with sizeable turnouts reported in districts such as Farrukhabad, where nearly 86 per cent of lawyers cast votes in a previous round. The current election cycle aims to fill 25 seats among more than 300 candidates across several districts.
These elections are particularly significant because Uttar Pradesh’s bar body plays a central role in regulating legal practice, certifying advocates, and representing the profession’s interests.
Disruptions and allegations of malpractice can therefore have ramifications not just for those practising law, but for public confidence in legal governance itself.
The Supreme Court’s involvement stems from broader concerns about electoral delays and disputes within bar councils across the country. In late 2025, the top court directed state bar council elections-including in Uttar Pradesh-to be completed by 31 January 2026, and suggested that verification issues such as LLB certificate checks should not justify postponements.
It also instructed the Bar Council of India to address complaints from electors and ensure smooth elections.
In parallel to concerns over ballot integrity at polling stations, the Bar Council electoral process has seen other controversies in recent months, including actions to remove lawyers with alleged fake degrees from voters’ lists and debates over election eligibility rules in the Supreme Court itself.
What Went Wrong
Protesting advocates described the discovery of pre-marked ticks on ballots as evidence of deliberate malpractice. Such claims struck at the heart of the fairness expected in any election-even more so in elections of a professional body tasked with upholding the rule of law.
While evidence supporting intentional tampering has not yet been independently verified, the intensity of reaction highlighted the deep frustration within the legal community.
Critics argue that logistical issues-such as inadequate ballot security, lack of clear oversight mechanisms at polling booths, and insufficient communication by organisers-may have compounded advocates’ distrust.
These systemic gaps have previously surfaced in other bar association elections across India, where disputes over voter lists, alleged rigging, and protest actions have periodically erupted.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The rule of law thrives not only on courts and statutes but on the belief that even internal processes within legal institutions are just, transparent and credible. The uproar in Lucknow’s Bar Council election is a symptom of broader anxieties about fairness in professional governance.
While robust debate and dissent are legitimate, disorder that mars democratic practices undercuts the very values advocates pledge to protect.
True reform must address grievances through structured dialogue, independent scrutiny and strengthened electoral safeguards-not street-level uproar alone.
