Writ Jurisdiction Not Available Against Private Societies: Internal Election Disputes Must Be Litigated Through Civil Remedies

1. Case Snapshot

• Case Name: Dr. Sanjay Tewari vs Indian Sociological Society And Ors

• Citation: 2026:DHC:5257

• High Court: High Court of Delhi

• Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

• Date of Judgment: July 2, 2026

• Area of Law: Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226; Societies Registration Act; Election Disputes; Maintainability

2. Judgment in Brief

The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of election results of the Indian Sociological Society (ISS). The petitioner, who had secured the highest votes for the post of Secretary, was debarred from contesting elections for ten years following an Enquiry Committee report finding that he had used automated scripts for fraudulent multiple voting. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable because the ISS is a private society that does not perform public functions, is not substantially funded by the government, and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. On merits, the Court found that the actions taken by the society were justified, based on technical evidence, and in conformity with its Bye-Laws and principles of natural justice. The Court also noted that the petitioner had already approached the Charity Commissioner under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, which was the appropriate remedy.

3. Relevant Facts

• The petitioner was a life member of the Indian Sociological Society (ISS), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950.

• ISS conducted online elections in November 2025 for posts including President and Secretary. The petitioner contested for the post of Secretary.

• On November 12, 2025, during online voting, technical irregularities including multiple voting attempts were detected. The petitioner himself brought these issues to the attention of the Election Officers.

• A technical audit by the service provider (respondent no.5) on November 14, 2025 identified "malicious actors" who had attempted multiple voting. The petitioner was one of the persons named.

• A show cause notice dated November 16, 2025 was issued to the petitioner alleging malpractices. The petitioner submitted his reply on November 19, 2025.

• On November 19, 2025, the Election Committee constituted an Enquiry Committee comprising two former presidents to investigate the audit report.

• The Enquiry Committee submitted its report on November 28, 2025, recommending: (a) cancellation of petitioner's candidature; (b) debarment from contesting elections for ten years; (c) removal from post of Convenor; and (d) annulment of elections and fresh re-elections.

• The Managing Committee accepted these recommendations on December 2, 2025, and the decision was communicated to the petitioner on December 3, 2025.

• The decision was ratified by the General Body Meeting on

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.