The Supreme Court criticised the Bar Council for its unclear stance in Karnal and Rohtak bar election disputes. It ordered urgent High Court hearings and granted interim relief to affected lawyers.
New Delhi: Today, On May 27, The Supreme Court of India recently gave important directions in two legal matters connected with the elections of bar associations in Karnal and Rohtak.
These cases were brought before the Court due to serious allegations of irregularities and unfair actions in the elections and functioning of these bar associations.
A vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta heard two different petitions filed by advocates Sandeep Chaudhry and Sandeep Kumar.
The first case was about Sandeep Chaudhry being stopped from contesting the Karnal Bar Association elections.
The second case involved allegations of fraud in the Rohtak Bar Association voter list and the suspension of a lawyer’s licence for standing against the current president.
At the beginning of the hearing, the Supreme Court asked the Punjab and Haryana Bar Council to clearly state its position regarding the Karnal Bar elections.
Senior Advocate Narendra Hooda, who appeared for petitioner Sandeep Chaudhry, told the Court that the Bar Council was not against conducting fresh elections.
He said,
“Insofar as Karnal is concerned, they are agreeable to holding elections again.”
However, the lawyer representing the State Bar Council began giving confusing and mixed statements.
He told the Court,
“We are at your lordships hands, however there are serious allegations regarding chamber allocations.”
This caused the bench to criticise the Bar Council strongly.
Justice Surya Kant remarked,
“That’s the problem…You never take a firm stand because you need their votes. You are a statutory body. If procedure has not been followed, you should say elections should be held afresh in a transparent manner.”
A report from the Special Election Committee had earlier stated that Sandeep Chaudhry did not produce important documents related to chamber allotments and association funds, even after several instructions.
The Committee had recommended that he should be banned from contesting elections for three years or until the inquiry ended.
Later, the Bar Council of India (BCI) decided to put a stay on this debarment order and allowed Chaudhry to take part in the elections scheduled for 28 February.
But this BCI order was challenged by another advocate, Jagmal Singh Jatain. He argued that the BCI had no legal power to interfere because there was no final order from the State Bar Council in the first place.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court agreed with this argument and cancelled the BCI’s decision. But on Tuesday, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision—not because of the legal arguments—but because Chaudhry had not been given a proper opportunity to explain his side.
The Supreme Court said,
“Since the impugned judgment of the High Court has been passed adversely impacting the rights of the appellant and at the same time without affording him a reasonable opportunity of being heard, the same is set aside on this ground alone.”
The Supreme Court sent the matter back to the High Court and asked it to hear the case again from the beginning.
It also added,
“Owing to urgency, the Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to post the matter for hearing on 2 June. We request the High Court to make an endeavour to decide the writ petition on merits at the earliest and issue appropriate directions as may be required.”
In the second case related to Rohtak Bar Association, Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy appeared for the petitioner and alleged serious electoral wrongdoings.
She said there was manipulation of the voter list and also mentioned that a lawyer named Arvind Kumar was punished just for standing in the elections against the sitting president.
She told the Court,
“There is manipulation of the electoral lists. His [Arvind Kumar’s] licence is suspended for contesting against the sitting president.”
Taking into account the urgent nature of this case, the Supreme Court gave temporary protection to the petitioner. It ordered that the case be heard sooner than the previously fixed date.
The Court said,
“The instant appeal is directed against an order passed by the High Court issuing notice in a writ petition without any interim direction. The writ petition is listed on July 11, 2025. Having regard to the urgency, the writ petition is ordered to be preponed; the same shall be heard on 2 July.”
Until then, the Supreme Court stayed the effects of the order passed by the Bar Council against the lawyer and gave clear instructions that those actions should not affect the ongoing case.
The bench said,
“Pleadings shall be complete by 2nd or 3rd June. Meanwhile, the order passed by the Bar Council debarring or suspending the member shall be kept in abeyance. The High Court will ignore the orders passed by the State Bar Council while deciding the matter on merits.”
In an earlier suggestion, the Supreme Court had even recommended that a retired High Court judge be appointed to supervise these bar elections. The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana was asked to submit a proposal regarding this suggestion.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Punjab & Haryana Bar Council
