SC Issues Bailable Warrant Over SCBA Election Complaint

Supreme Court Issues Bailable Warrant Against Advocate Over SCBA Election Complaint: Judges Warn of Contempt Amid Reform Debate

Advocate accused of filing ‘scandalous’ police complaint against SCBA Election Committee and judges

Court signals zero tolerance for misconduct as Bar Association reforms and election irregularities face scrutiny

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 08, 2025:

The Supreme Court of India has issued bailable warrants against advocate Dr. Mukut Nath Verma after he failed to appear in person before the court despite repeated directions. Verma had filed a police complaint against members of the Election Committee (EC) overseeing the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) elections and even made allegations against sitting judges of the apex court.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed that Verma’s conduct prima facie amounted to criminal contempt of court, as his complaint was described as “scandalous and frivolous.” The court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) and the Station House Officer (SHO) of Tilak Marg Police Station to execute the warrant and ensure Verma’s presence on the next hearing date.

The order warned that if Verma failed to appear again, the court would be compelled to issue non-bailable warrants.

The Complaint That Sparked Controversy

Verma’s complaint, filed at Tilak Nagar police station in New Delhi, accused senior advocates Vijay Hansaria, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, and Mahalakshmi Pavani—all members of the SCBA Election Committee—of manipulating the 2025 SCBA elections for “oblique motives.”

The complaint alleged that candidates were unfairly elected to key posts, including the SCBA President, and demanded a police investigation. Shockingly, the complaint also contained insinuations against judges of the Supreme Court, which the bench said undermined the dignity of the institution.

Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, who chaired the Election Committee, appeared before the bench and stressed the seriousness of the allegations. “The reputation of the SCBA is involved,” he told the court, urging strong action to protect the credibility of the Bar.

Court’s Stern Response

The bench noted that Verma had been directed to appear in person on May 29, 2025, but instead appeared online. His virtual presence was not accepted, and he was ordered to attend physically on the next date. Despite this, he neither appeared nor withdrew his complaint.

Justice Surya Kant remarked that such conduct could not be tolerated. “People must not feel that they can say anything and get away with it,” he said, adding that the dignity of the judiciary and the Bar must be preserved.

The court concluded that Verma’s actions prima facie constituted contempt and therefore issued a bailable warrant of ₹10,000 to secure his presence.

SCBA Elections Under the Scanner

The controversy comes against the backdrop of serious allegations of irregularities in the 2025 SCBA elections. Former SCBA President Dr. Adish C. Aggarwala has already filed a plea challenging the results, alleging electoral fraud and malpractice.

Aggarwala, who lost to Senior Advocate Vikas Singh, claimed that the number of votes counted exceeded the number of slips issued, suggesting ballot stuffing. He also alleged violations of the model code of conduct, including campaign messages sent on polling day.

Justice Surya Kant, while hearing Aggarwala’s plea earlier this year, remarked: “If we are satisfied, we will set aside the election.” The court has already directed the preservation of CCTV footage of the voting process.

The Larger Issue: SCBA Reforms

The SCBA elections have long been marred by allegations of malpractice, prompting the Supreme Court to push for electoral reforms. The SCBA v. B.D. Kaushik case, which has been ongoing for years, deals with issues of transparency, eligibility, and fairness in Bar Association elections.

The current controversy has reignited calls for:

Stricter oversight of SCBA elections.
Independent monitoring of the voting process.
Clearer eligibility rules for candidates.
Accountability mechanisms for the Election Committee.

Legal experts argue that the credibility of the SCBA, which represents advocates practicing in the Supreme Court, is crucial for maintaining public trust in the judiciary.

Judges Balance Firmness with Wit

Interestingly, during the hearing, Justice Surya Kant made a light-hearted remark about the atmosphere within the Bar. “Unless you have some stage artists like him, the atmosphere will be very dry,” he quipped, referring to Verma’s dramatic conduct.

However, the bench quickly returned to a serious tone, emphasizing that false and defamatory allegations against judges and senior advocates cannot be allowed to go unchecked.

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court has made it clear that Verma must appear in person at the next hearing. If he fails to do so, non-bailable warrants will be issued.

Meanwhile, the court is also expected to continue hearing Aggarwala’s plea challenging the election results. If irregularities are proven, the court has indicated it may even scrap the 2025 SCBA elections and order fresh polls.

The twin proceedings—one concerning Verma’s contempt and the other concerning election irregularities—are likely to shape the future of SCBA reforms.

Why This Matters

The SCBA is not just another lawyers’ body. It is the most influential Bar Association in India, representing advocates who practice in the Supreme Court. Its elections often reflect the power dynamics within the legal fraternity, and its leadership plays a key role in shaping the relationship between the Bar and the Bench.

Any controversy surrounding its elections therefore has wider implications for the credibility of the judiciary itself.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to issue a bailable warrant against Advocate Mukut Nath Verma underscores its determination to protect the dignity of the judiciary and the integrity of the SCBA.

At the same time, the court’s willingness to examine allegations of electoral fraud shows that it is equally committed to ensuring fairness and transparency in Bar Association elections.

As the hearings continue, the legal fraternity—and indeed the nation—will be watching closely. The outcome could set important precedents for professional accountability, electoral integrity, and judicial dignity in India.