The Supreme Court of India has strongly urged the Punjab and Haryana (P&H) Bar Council to take a firm and clear stand in the ongoing Haryana Bar elections dispute. The Court expressed disappointment over the alleged irregularities and the Bar Council’s indecisiveness.
Read also: SC Collegium Recommends Three High Court Judges for Supreme Court Elevation
"You never take a firm stand because you need their votes. That is the whole problem. You are a statutory body! You should be very clear that if procedure has not been followed, you should firmly say procedure has not been followed and we would like that elections be held afresh in a transparent manner...if you are satisfied that everything has been minutely followed, there has been faithful compliance with the rule book, you take a stand and we will examine," said Justice Surya Kant during the hearing.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta was hearing two petitions. One was filed by an advocate who challenged his disqualification from contesting elections of the Karnal Bar Association. The other involved issues such as manipulation of the electoral roll in the Rohtak Bar Association.
Read also: Centre Appoints 7 Advocates as High Court Judges Across India
Earlier, in the Karnal Bar case, the Court expressed serious concerns about the working of the P&H Bar Council and the Karnal Bar Association. The Court asked Senior Advocate R.S. Cheema to suggest names of senior and respected members of the Karnal Bar who could manage the affairs of the association temporarily.
On April 15, the Court had asked for names to form an independent tribunal, headed by a retired High Court judge, to oversee the elections. Later, on May 20, the Court directed the P&H Bar Council Chairman to submit a proposal within two days for nominating a former High Court judge to conduct fresh elections in Haryana.
Senior Advocate Narender Hooda, representing the appellant in the Karnal Bar case, informed the Court that while the Bar Council was open to fresh elections in Karnal, it was not willing to extend the same to other districts.
Read also: SC Collegium Recommends Three High Court Judges for Supreme Court Elevation
When Justice Kant asked Senior Advocate Rakesh Gupta, Chairman of the P&H Bar Council, about the council’s stand, he responded, "We are in your Lordships' hands," but also mentioned allegations against the appellant regarding chamber allotments and construction.
Frustrated by the Bar Council’s indecisive position, Justice Kant remarked that the Bar Council never takes a firm stand because "it needs votes".
The Supreme Court then set aside the High Court’s earlier judgment in the Karnal Bar case, saying:
"Since the impugned judgment of 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. Matter is remitted to High Court for fresh adjudication after hearing the parties. Owing to the urgency, Chief Justice of High Court is requested to post the matter for hearing on 2 June. We request the High Court to make an endeavor to decide the writ petition on merits at the earliest and issue appropriate directions as may be required."
In the Rohtak Bar case, Senior Advocate Dr. Menaka Guruswamy argued that notices were issued in the writ petition without passing any interim directions. The Supreme Court ordered the High Court to take up the matter on June 2 and to ignore all previous state bar council orders for deciding the case.
In the meantime, the order revoking the license of one of the appellants who wished to contest the elections shall be kept in abeyance, the Court added.
Appearance: Senior Advocates RS Cheema (Amicus Curiae), Narender Hooda, Dr Menaka Guruswamy, Rajive Bhalla, Arvind Sangwan, Santosh Paul, Ritu Bahri and RS Malik; AoRs Shrey Kapoor, Sunny Kadiyan, Varun Punia, Vedant Pradhan, Radhika Gautam, Raghavendra Pratap Singh, Saurabh Agrawal, RC Kaushik, Ajit Sharma and Akshay Saxena; Advocates Nipun Arora, Karan Kapoor and Archana Yadav
Case Title:
(1) SANDEEP CHAUDHRY Versus JAGMAL SINGH JATAIN AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 7868-7869/2025
(2) SANDEEP KUMAR AND ORS. Versus BAR COUNCIL OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 10323/2025
