In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana

At Chandigarh

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 08.09.2025

Sandeep Kumar and others …………. … Petitioners

Versus

Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana and others…………... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA

PRESENT:Dr. Menaka Guruswamy, Senior Advocate (through VC) with

Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate (through VC),

Mr. Lokinder Singh, Advocate,

Mr. Nipun Arora, Advocate and

Mr. Aditya Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. B.S. Rana, Advocate with

Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate,

for respondent – Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana.

Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate,

for respondent No.3 – Bar Council of India.

None for respondents No.4 to 7 and 9.

Mr. HPS Ishar, Advocate for respondent Nos.8, 10 & 11.

Mr. Naveen Kumar Singhal, Advocate for the intervenor.

*****

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

1.The petitioners, who are Advocates, enrolled as members of District Bar

Association of Rohtak(herein-after referred to as DBA), invoke writ

jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India of this Court,

with the following prayers:

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 2 )

(i)quashing of the entire electoral process of DBA Rohtak

pertaining to election for the year 2056-26 and all consequent

proceedings/orders thereon;

(ii) quashing of the Bar Associations (Constitution and

Registrations) Rules, 2015 (herein-after referred to as 2015

Rules), being ultra-vires;

(iii) quashing of the impugned disciplinary proceedings against the

petitioner No.2 including the order dated 13.3.2025 Annexure P-

40) vide which his license has been suspended for a period of 5

years;

(iv)issuance of a direction to the respondents to hold the Electoral

Process of District Bar Association, Rohtak afresh only after

finalizing the voters list through the Election Committee to be

nominated by the General House of District Bar Association

Rohtak in a specially convened meeting of General House to be

held under the observation of observer nominated by the

Hon’ble High Court.

2.It is averred that petitioner No.2 – Arvind Kumar, Advocate was elected as

President of District Bar Association, Rohtak during the year 2023-2024,

whereas petitioner No.1 – Sandeep Kumar, Advocate was Vice President

and petitioner No.3 was General Secretary. Respondent no.1, Bar Council of

Punjab and Haryana(herein-after referred to as “BC-P&H)” vide letter dated

16.11.2024(Annexure P-2) announced the schedule for the next election to

be conducted on 28.2.2025 as under:

1Filing of affidavits in terms of Rule 6(b)(i) of __ (Affidavit by those

Advocates who happen to be members of more than one Bar

Associations as regards their option to vote in that particular

District/Sub-Division Bar Association)

Upto

10.1.2025

2Clearance of dues by members (in terms of Rule 6(b(i) i.e from the

bank account of such member

Upto

10.1.2025

3 Sending lists of eligible voters by DBA to Bar Council Pb & Hr

Nomination of Returning Officers/ Election Committee by BarOn or before

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 3 )

Association with intimation to Bar Council.

Bar Association/ Returning Officer Election Committee to put

up list of eligible voters on Notice Board and also to circulate the

same through ‘WhatsApp’.

17.1.2025

4Bar Council to send said list to Returning Officer / Election

Committee of such Bar Association.

Upto

24.1.2025

5Such Voter list to be put up on Notice Board of Bar Association

inviting objections

27.1.2025

6Last date for receiving objections against voter list On or before

1.2.2025

7Objections, as received to be decided by Bar Council. On or before

7.2.2025

8Bar Association to get accounts audited and put up the same on notice

board.

On or before

7.2.2025

9Polling Day 28.2.2025

3.It is averred that although pursuant to the aforesaid schedule, a meeting of

DBA was convened on 3.1.2025 and a list of 21 members comprising

Election Committee was conveyed vide letter dated 3.1.2025(P-4) but the

then General Secretary (respondent no.8) who was a contestant for post of

President wrote letters separately to BC-P&H, contrary to wishes of General

House. Subsequently DBA sent another list of 23 members of Election

Committee on 4.1.2025 by including two more members but respondent no.

1 BC-P&H, vide letter dated 16.1.2025, illegally constituted an Election

Committee of its own choice without following the mandate of the General

House. It is further averred that names of several members were deleted

from the voter’s list without any reason and that the electoral process was

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 4 )

not conducted strictly as per the schedule framed by BC-P&H .

4.Apart from aforesaid challenge to electoral process, the petitioners also

challenge the vires of the Bar Associations (Constitution and Registration)

Rules, 2015 on the following grounds:

i)that the respondent Bar Council is not authorized to abrogate the Rules

and Bye-laws of the District Bar Associations and any rule authorizing

the same is ultra-vires since the same amounts to unwarranted

interference in affairs of Bar Associations. The Bar Associations, being

registered under The Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies

Act, 2012 have to follow the provisions of the said enactment and rules

framed thereunder whereas the impugned Rules of 2015 are in conflict

with the same;

ii) that the impugned rules give unbridled and over-reaching powers to

Chairman of Bar Council which are prone to misuse and abuse as has

been the case in the present matter.

iii)that the Bar Council is not competent to frame rule 11(e) and decide

about the jurisdiction of civil court;

iv)that the members of Bar Council have their own personal political

interests in the affairs of Bar Associations due to which there is

tendency to foster groupism in Bar Associations and hence the

members of Bar Council are not competent to adjudicate Election

Petitions;

v)that the over-regulation and control on Bar Associations through the

impugned rules proves that the impugned rules are prone to malicious

abuse and misuse to settle scores with political adversaries;

vi)that rule 6(B)(ii) is ultravires as the same vests unfettered power in the

Bar Council to meddle in internal affairs of Bar Associations and under

the garb of the said rule, the Bar Council and its Chairman has acquired

power to interfere in the electoral process by removing returning officer

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 5 )

appointed by the General House of Bar Association;

vii)that rule 6(B)(iii) is ultravires as the same vests unbridled and

uncontrolled power on respondent Bar Council to fix political

adversaries of its members as has been done in the matter of Bar

BarAssociation Rohtak where licence of one of the contestant for post

of President i.e petitioner no.2 was suspended after nomination process

and the other contestant supported by Bar Council member concerned

was declared elected by playing havoc with the electoral process;

viii)that rule 9 is ultra-vires since it vests power in the respondent Bar

Council to vest administration of Bar Association in an Adhoc

Committee nominated by the Bar Council on failure of Bar Association

to hold elections in extended time but the said power is most likely to

be abused and misused for furthering political interests of members of

Bar Council rather than for collective good of the members of Bar

Association;

ix)that rule 11 is ultravires since the respondent State Bar Council and its

Chairman has taken unto themselves adjudicatory role by constituting

election tribunal when no such provision for such adjudicatory role of

respondent Bar Council exists under the scheme of Advocates Act,

1961 and that a tribunal can be constituted only as per mandate of

Article 323-B of the Constitution of India by the Parliament of India or

State Legislatures.

5.The grievance, adversely affecting petitioner no.2 is order dated

13.3.2025(Annexure P-40) passed by Disciplinary Committee of respondent

no.1, vide which the license of petitioner No.2 has been suspended. It is

averred that the petitioner no.2 was illegally ousted from the contest by

suspending his licence on a ground which otherwise would be equally

applicable to his opponent Sh. Deepak Hooda since in all the

communications issued in connection with suspension of work by the DBA

Rohtak, Sh. Deepak Hooda was equal signatory but his candidature enjoyed

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 6 )

open support from the erstwhile Chairman of respondent Bar Council and

hence the petitioner no.2 was illegally ousted from contest just to ensure

that Sh. Deepak Hooda is declared as elected president of DBA Rohtak.

6.Respondent No.1 – Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, in its reply has

asserted that petitioner No.2 claimed himself to be President of ‘All

Haryana Bar Association’and had called a strike, which continued from

2.9.2024 to 3.10.2024 i.e. for a period of 1 month and 2 days during the

course of which the judicial work in the District Courts was paralyzed and

was also badly affected in various other districts in the State of Haryanaas

well. Paragraph No.2(b) of preliminary objections is reproduced

hereinunder:

“2(b)That petitioner no.2 on 21.09.2024 sent a letter dated 21.09.2024

on the whatsapp of the then Chairman, Bar council of Punjab &

Haryana in that letter it was stated that a meeting of all Presidents

& executive members of state of Haryana was held on the said

day at District Bar Association Rohtak wherein it was decided

that all the Bar Associations will jointly request Bar Council of

Punjab and Haryana to take a decision of work suspension across

the Courts of Haryana, Punjab, Chandigarh and the Hon'ble High

Court to show solidarity in support of Rohtak Bar. The letter

dated 21.09.2024 was duly signed with seal by Arvind Kumar

Sheoran, President District Bar Association Rohtak along with

some other office bearers of Bar Associations situated in

Haryana.”

7.Respondent No.1 in its reply has, however, stated that the Bar Council of

Punjab & Haryana did not take any action on the call for strike made by

President, District Bar Association, Rohtak as the letter did not even

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 7 )

mention anything regarding resolving the issue pertaining Advocate Sumit

Kumar. However, the strike is stated to have continued in District Rohtak till

3.10.2024. On merits all the material averments have been denied.

8. On the other hand, respondent No.3 – Bar Council of India has taken a stand

that respondent No.3 is a statutory body deriving its powers and duties under

the Advocates Act, 1961 and has been bestowed with the authority to hear

and decide appeals arising out of any order passed by the Disciplinary

Committee of State Bar Council and infact an appeal filed by petitioner No.2

i.e. appeal bearing No.34/2025 assailing order dated 13.3.2025 is already

pending adjudication before the Bar Council of India.

9. The private respondents no. 8, 10 and 11, in their reply have denied all the

material averments made by the petitioners and while raising issues as

regards maintainability of writ petition, have prayed for dismissal of the

same.

10. Primarily, the following three grievances of petitioners can be discerned

from the pleadings:

(i)that the Bar Associations (Constitution and Registrations)

Rules, 2015 do not have any legal sanctity and being ultra-

vires, deserve to be quashed;

(ii)that electoral process pertaining to election of office bearers of

DBA Rohtak for the years 2056-26 was unfair and various

illegalities were committed so as to favour the opposing

candidates;

(iii)that order dated 13.3.2025 (Annexure P-40), passed by

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 8 )

Disciplinary committee of Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana,

vide which license of petitioner no.2 has been suspended for a

period of 5 years, is a malicious order and deserves to be

quashed;

11.Vires of 2015 Rules :

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The petitioners, though

primarily aggrieved by suspension of license of petitioner no.2 for five years

and not having been successful on election, have also laid a perfunctory

attack on the vires of the Bar Associations (Constitution and Registration)

Rules, 2015. It deserves to be mentioned that the aforesaid rules came to be

framed pursuant to directions issued by a Division Bench of this Court in

LPA-1427-2014 titled Mohinder Singh Chauhan Versus Bar Council of

Punjab & Haryana and another, decided on 1.9.2014. The relevant extract

from aforesaid judgment dated 1.9.2014 is reproduced herein-under:

“3.……….We have impressed upon them that let the Bar Council address the

aforesaid and other related issues and enact appropriate Rules which can be

applied uniformly to all the Sub Divisional or District level Bar Associations.

The Bar Council would also consult the Office-bearers of District Bar

Associations to give effect to its decision uniformly in both the States. Sh.

Gupta, assures that given at least two weeks’ time, the Bar Council shall

formulate a policy and, if need be, shall amend the existing Rules.

4.While ironing out the above noticed anomalous situation prevailing due to

conflicting bye-laws framed by various Bar Associations, the Bar Council

shall also take notice of other anomalies which are affecting the purity,

fairness, transparency and democratic values in the annual elections of Bar

Associations. The Bar Council must ensure that comprehensive policy

decision with appropriate statutory back-up, to be formulated henceforth by

it, is given effect by all the Bar Associations without any exception, failing

which the Bar Council should invoke its other statutory powers under the

Act.

5. We thus dispose of this appeal, on the assurance given on behalf of the Bar

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 9 )

Council of Punjab & Haryana, that the issue(s) raked up in this appeal or that

keep on arising otherwise, shall be adequately addressed by them and

necessary steps shall be taken to introduce a uniform pattern of eligibility

conditions for contesting, voting and/or the tenure of Executive

Members/office-bearers of Bar Associations at district or sub division

levels.”

12. As is apparent, the reason which weighed with this Court while disposing

off the aforesaid LPA was to ensure that adequate steps are taken for

framing rules so as to usher in some kind of uniformity and fairness in

matters pertaining to the membership of Bar Associations and conduct of

elections. The aim and object of the Rules as is stated in Rules is as under:

"Aims and Objects:-

i)To bring the uniformity, Transparency relating to the elections of

the Office Bearers of the All Bar Associations comes within the

jurisdiction of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana.

ii)To avoid the complicity bye laws framed by various Bar

Associations which are affecting Purity, Fairness and

Democratic value in the annual elections of the Bar

Association."

13.The vires of Bar Associations (Constitution and Registrations) Rules, 2015

came to challenged before a Division Bench of this Court in Rakesh Punia

vs. Bar Council of India 2017(2) SCT 634. The question posed before the

Bench, as is stated in para 2 of the judgement is extracted herein-under:

“2.The question raised in the present petitions is whether the Bar Association

(Constitution and Registration) Rules, 2015 (for short "the 2015 Rules")

are ultra vires being beyond the Rule making powers of the State Bar

Council under the Advocates Act, 1961 (for short "the 1961 Act") ? And

further whether the said Rules are violative of the rights of the petitioners

as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution?”

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 10 )

14.The Division, upon considering all the relevant issues held as under:

“42. Based on the aforesaid considerations, we are satisfied that the State Bar

Council is empowered in terms of the above referred provisions to frame

rules which have as their object to bring about uniformity and

transparency in matters relating to the elections of the Bar Associations,

within its jurisdiction. In fact framing of such Rules may be considered an

inevitable necessity to effectuate the broad legislative scheme evidenced

by the Acts and Rules referred to above wherein the Bar Associations

recognized by the State Bar Council have been assigned a Central role as

also in view of the role and importance of the Bar Associations in the

administration of justice and the imperative noticed and stressed even by

Hon'ble the Supreme Court to ensure that the Associations are truly the

representatives of the Advocates practicing in the Courts. Accordingly we

do not find any merit in the argument of the petitioner that the Rules are

ultra vires being beyond the Rule making power of the State Bar Council.

47.We also find no merit in the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the

petitioners that the 2015 Rules are invalid as proper procedure was not

followed. In view of the proceedings of the Bar Council of Punjab and

Haryana and the communications referred to by the Ld. Counsel for the

Bar Council, we find that the statutory pre-requisites for the validity of the

Rules were complied with. The draft Rules after being framed by the

Rules Drafting Committee, were considered by the Bar Council of Punjab

and Haryana, which sent the same for approval to the Bar Council of

India. The General House of the Bar Council of India approved the same

in its meeting held on 2.5.2015.

48.Thus, there is no merit in the present set of petitions and the same are

dismissed.

49.It is clarified that in the present set of petitions, we have only addressed

the question of the competence of the State Bar Council to frame rules for

regulating the elections of the Bar Associations and have held that the

regulation of elections to the Bar Associations through framing of such

Rules intended to achieve fairness and transparency in the election process

is not ultra vires the provisions of the 1961 Act. It is also not violative of

the fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution. We have

not gone into the validity of individual provisions of the 2015 Rules as no

argument was addressed regarding any individual provision. So this

decision should not be construed as having opined on and affirmed the

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 11 )

validity of each and every provision of the 2015 Rules.”

15.As noticed above , the constitutional validity of the Rules has been upheld

although each of the rule was not individually examined. It may here be

mentioned that Rule11(e) as of now stands repealed. The vires of the Rules,

particularly of Rule 6, 9 and 11 is now sought to be challenged on the

ground that the same vests unbridled powers on Bar Council to interfere in

the matters of Bar Associations and infact leaves much room for misuse of

powers by the members of Bar Council to further their political interests.

16. Before proceeding to examine the aforesaid contentions regarding misuse of

powers by members of Bar Council, it is imperative to refer to relevant

provisions pertaining to functions of State Bar Councils. The Bar Council

does exercise administrative powers as specifically vested under The

Advocates Act 1961 Act. The functions of the State Bar Councils are

defined in Section 6 of the 1961 Act, which as amended up to date reads as

under:

"6. Functions of State Bar Councils-

(1) The functions of a State Bar Council shall be-

(a) to admit persons as advocates on its roll.

(b) to prepare and maintain such roll

(c) to entertain and determine cases of misconduct against advocates on its roll

(d) to safeguard the rights, privileges and interest of advocates on its roll

(dd) to promote the growth of Bar Associations for the purpose of effective

implementations of the welfare schemes referred to in clause (a) of sub

section (2) of this section and clause (a) of sub section (2) of section 7;

(e) to promote and support law reform

(ee) to conduct seminars and organize talks on legal topics by eminent jurists and

publish journals and papers of legal interest.

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 12 )

(eee) to organize legal aid to the poor in the prescribed manner

(f)to manage and invest the funds of the Bar Council

(g) to provide for the election of its members.

(gg) to visit and inspect Universities in accordance with the directions given under

clause (I) of sub-section (1) of section 7;

(h) to perform all other functions conferred on it by or under this Act;

(i) to do all other things necessary for discharging the aforesaid functions

(2) A State Bar Council may constitute one or more funds in the prescribed manner

for the purpose of –

(a) giving financial assistance to organize welfare schemes for the indigent,

disabled or other advocates;

(b) giving legal aid or advice in accordance with the rules made in this behalf;

(c) Establishing law libraries.

(3) A State Bar Council may receive any grants, donations, gifts or benefactions for

all or any of the purposes specified in sub-section (2) which shall be credited to

the appropriate fund or funds constituted under that sub-section.

17.The relevant rules under challenge particularly Rule, 6, 9 and 11 need to be

examined in order to understand the purpose sought to be served by these

rules and legality thereof. Rule 6, 9 and 11 read as under:

6.Admission of Members and Election of Bar Associations:

Every Bar Association, registered or unregistered under these Rules, shall

maintain a website wherein there will be a special provision to seek

membership of the Bar Association. It would provide details of performa,

application to become member and details of the bank account where

admission/subscription fee can be deposited. Any person duly enrolled as an

advocate with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana wishing to become a

member can apply online on providing his/her enrollment certificate and

furnish reference of 2 (Two) members of that Bar Association knowing him

and also submit required admission/ subscription fees in the account of the

Bar Association so provided. The Bar Association, within one week of

receiving such application, may raise objections after verification from

disclosed members failing which membership of such applicant will be

deemed to be approved and on decision of the objections, such person would

be deemed to be a member from the date of application or in alternate, the Bar

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 13 )

Association may seek written application accompanied with account payees

cheque in relation to admission fees and follow the procedure above

described. The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana shall create an online

portal wherein such desirous members can also post copy of their application

for reference sake.

Any person enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar council of Punjab and

Haryana, wishing to become a member of a Bar Association may apply in

writing to the President/Secretary/authorized person of the Bar Association for

admission on an application prescribed as per the constitution/bye-laws of the

concerned Bar Association with a copy of the application to the Bar Council.

Such an advocate will have to furnish an affidavit to the Bar Association with

a copy to the Bar Council to the effect that he will remain in an active practice

and will not do any other business/Service, or other profession as prohibited

under the Advocates Act/Rules of Bar Council of India.

Any advocate enrolled with other State Bar Council shall not be entitled to

vote in the election unless he/she gets his/her name transferred U/s 18 of the

Act, before the finalization of the voter List. Under the Rules of Bar Council

of India, every advocate is under an obligation to see that his/her name

appears on the roll of the Bar Council within whose jurisdiction he/she

ordinarily practices. Already enrolled member of the Bar Association before

coming into force of these rules shall be asked to furnish an affidavit referred

above within 60 days of the approval of these amended rules failing which

they would seize to be a member/s of such Bar Association.

A)Every bar Association will supply a copy of its constitution/by laws to the

Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. The amendment in the

existing constitution/bye-laws can be done by the Bar Association as per

its own constitution/bye-laws.

B) (i)There shall be election of every Bar Association by secret ballot for

electing its office bearers every year on 3rd Week of December, in case

the 3rd Friday falls on a holiday, the election will be held on next

working day except Saturday or on some earlier date as to be decided by

the General House, preferably on the 20th December of each year, if the

said date happens to be a holiday then on the next working day. The Bar

Council of Punjab and Haryana shall declare the said date in its general

house meeting 60 days in advance. Every advocate can become member

of one or more Bar Associations but he will have a right to cast his/her

vote only at one Bar Association and for that he/she shall file an affidavit

to this effect at every election that he/she intends to cast his/her vote in a

particular Bar Association elections positively before 31st October of

each year. It will be the duty of the Bar Association to get the annual

subscription from 1st January to 31st December of respective year

cleared before finalizing the list of voters on or before 31st October of

every year and thereafter the Bar Association will send the list of eligible

voters along with duly sworn affidavits and photocopy of subscription

clearance proof within 7 days. Thereafter, The Bar Council of Punjab and

Haryana shall within 7 days, circulate the so received list by way of

notification to each particular Bar Association with a direction to its

executive to put on its notice board within 7 days seeking objection

within 5 days directly to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana online

via email in the email id provided in the notification. Such notification

would specify that the said list is available on the website of the Bar

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 14 )

Council of Punjab and Haryana in public domain so that any member can

access the same. All the objections received shall be decided by a special

Committee/ Committees of the Bar Council to be appointed by the

General House or duly authorised by Chairman of the Bar Council

well in advance before issuing the above notification specifying the area

of operation and such committee shall decide the objections on or before

30th November of each year. On completing the aforesaid procedure, the

final lists of the respective Bar Association/s shall be put on the website

of the Bar Council and or alterations can be made on any ground

whatsoever and such lists shall be final for the purpose of conducting the

elections. In case a particular Bar Association fails to make compliance

well within time as mentioned above then the Bar Council or duly

authorized Chairman will appoint Adhoc Committee who will take over

the entire control of the Bar Association and will get the elections

conducted under its supervision.

Note:- Provided that clearance of subscription shall be by way of RTGS or

NEFT or IMPS or UPI or any other electronic mode of transfer of money

of by account payees cheque from the account of member himself. In

case of cheque, such cheques must be deposited immediately after the last

date within 2 working days otherwise such subscription shall be deemed

to be doubtful.

ii)For conducting the annual elections, every Bar Association shall

nominate returning Officer/ election Committee as per their own

constitution / bye-laws and intimation of the same shall be sent to Bar

Council of Punjab and Haryana on or before 7th November of each year.

If any complaint is received by the Bar Council against appointment of

such returning officer/ election Committee then the Chairman, Bar

Council after seeking the comments from the Bar Association and

hearing the parties may dismiss the objections if unsustainable or if

reasonable grounds are made out then direct fresh general house meeting

to be conducted of such Bar Association/s and direct the Bar Association

to submit the list of names proposed in the General House for

appointment of returning officer/election Committee. The Chairman Bar

Council may, if so desired, send observer in General House of respective

Bar Association for the purpose of electing/nominating of Returning

Officer/Election Committee.

iii)The accounts of the Bar Association of every year shall be duly audited

and put on the notice board on or before 1st. December of each year

along with the copy of sent to the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana

failing which, the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana may disentitle the

office bearers from further contesting the elections who are found

negligent on this regard. The outgoing President and Secretary of the Bar

Association shall be duty bound to hand over the entire record of the Bar

Association i.e. resolution books, account books, cheque books, pass

books, chamber records, membership register or any other record which

is required to be maintained in due process to the newly elected body

forthwith after election of every year failing which such president and

secretary shall be disentitled to contest elections in the future. Every Bar

Association, apart from physical record, would also keep digital record of

every record and shall preserve the same by preparing a copy.

iv)In each election an observer may be sent by the Chairman of the State

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 15 )

Bar Council, in case there is a request in writing by Returning Officer or

candidate to supervise the election or otherwise.

9. Terms Of Office:

The office bearers of the Bar Association and Members of the Executive

Committee shall hold the office till the completion of one year from the date

of their election. However in extraordinary circumstances they may continue

for a further period of one month with the prior approval of Bar Council, for

reasons to be recorded. The office bearers of the Bar Association shall have to

get the election completed within the extended time, failing which the

administration of the Association will vest in a Adhoc Committee duly

nominated by Bar Council, who will hold the elections at the earliest

preferably within 1 month.

11. Role of the Bar Council

a.In case of any dispute in connection with the Voter list in elections of the

office bearers the matter will be taken up by the Bar Council suo-moto or on

the basis of complaint filed by any effected member and the decision of the

Bar Council will be final.

b.That in order to resolve the above said dispute or to decide any dispute the

Chairman of the Bar Council will constitute a committee of three members of

the Bar Council whose decision will be final.

c.In case any dispute arises after the declaration of the result the aggrieved party

shall approach the Bar Council by way of Election Petition within 15 days of

the declaration of the result accompanied by a fee of Rs. 5,000/-.

d.After the receipt of the Election Petition the Chairman of the Bar Council

shall constitute an Election Tribunal consisting of Three Elected Members of

the Bar Council and the said Election Petition will be decided expeditiously

preferably within 2 months. And the decision of the Tribunal shall be final.

e.No Civil Court would havejurisdictiontoentertainanydispute with the regard to

the Election of the Bar Association.(now repealed)

f.The Bar Council shall have the power to cancel the certificate of registration

and recognition granted to any Bar Association under these Rules after

providing an opportunity of being heard to the concerned parties.”

18. Since vires of the rules is under challenge, the guiding principles laid down

by Hon’ble Apex Court need to be borne in mind. In State of Tamil Nadu vs.

P. Krishnamurthy and Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 517, Hon’ble Supreme Court

culled out the following principles while adjudging the validity of

subordinate legislation, including regulations:

“15.There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a

subordinate legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to

show that it is invalid. It is also well recognized that a subordinate

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 16 )

legislation can be challenged under any of the following grounds:

(a)Lack of legislative competence to make the subordinate

legislation.

(b)Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the

Constitution of India.

(c)Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India.

(d)Failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or

exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act.

(e)Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment.

(f)Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where the

court might well say that the legislature never intended to give

authority to make such rules.”

19.In its recent judgement in Naresh Chandra Agrawal vs. The Institute of

Chartered Accountants of India & others 2024 AIR (SC) 1139, Hon’ble

Supreme Court, while referring to P.Krishnamurthy’s case (supra) as well as

to several other judgements summarized the principles with regard to

challenge of vires of subordinate legislation as under:

“32.From reference to the precedents discussed above and taking an overallview of the

instant matter, we proceed to distil and summarise the followinglegal principles that

may be relevant in adjudicating cases where subordinatelegislation are challenged

on the ground of being `ultra vires' the parent Act:

(a)The doctrine of ultra vires envisages that a Rule making body mustfunction

within the purview of the Rule making authority, conferred onit by the parent

Act. As the body making Rules or Regulations has noinherent power of its

own to make rules, but derives such power onlyfrom the statute, it must

necessarily function within the purview of thestatute. Delegated legislation

should not travel beyond the purview of theparent Act.

(b)Ultra vires may arise in several ways; there may be simple excess ofpower

over what is conferred by the parent Act; delegated legislationmay be

inconsistent with the provisions of the parent Act; there may benoncompliance

with the procedural requirement as laid down in theparent Act. It is the

function of the courts to keep all authorities withinthe confines of the law by

supplying the doctrine of ultra vires.

(c)If a rule is challenged as being ultra vires, on the ground that itexceeds the

power conferred by the parent Act, the Court must, firstly,determine and

consider the source of power which is relatable to therule. Secondly, it must

determine the meaning of the subordinatelegislation itself and finally, it must

decide whether the subordinatelegislation is consistent with and within the

scope of the powerdelegated.

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 17 )

(d)Delegated rule-making power in statutes generally follows astandardized

pattern. A broad section grants authority with phrases like`to carry out the

provisions' or `to carry out the purposes.' Another subsectionspecifies areas

for delegation, often using language like `withoutprejudice to the generality of

the foregoing power.' In determining if theimpugned rule is intra vires/ultra

vires the scope of delegated power,Courts have applied the `generality vs

enumeration' principle.

(e)The "generality v. enumeration" principle lays down that, where astatute

confers particular powers without prejudice to the generality of ageneral

power already conferred, the particular powers are onlyillustrative of the

general power, and do not in any way restrict thegeneral power. In that sense,

even if the impugned rule does not fallwithin the enumerated heads, that by

itself will not determine if the ruleis ultra vires/intra vires. It must be further

examined if the impugnedrule can be upheld by reference to the scope of the

general power.

(f)The delegated power to legislate by making rules `for carrying out

thepurposes of the Act' is a general delegation, without laying down

anyguidelines as such. When such a power is given, it may be permissible

tofind out the object of the enactment and then see if the rules framedsatisfy

the Act of having been so framed as to fall within the scope ofsuch general

power confirmed.

(g)However, it must be remembered that such power delegated by anenactment

does not enable the authority, by rules/regulations, to extendthe scope or

general operation of the enactment but is strictly ancillary.It will authorize the

provision of subsidiary means of carrying into effectwhat is enacted in the

statute itself and will cover what is incidental tothe execution of its specific

provision. In that sense, the general powercannot be so exercised as to bring

into existence substantive rights orobligations or disabilities not contemplated

by the provisions of the Actitself.

(h) If the rule making power is not expressed in such a usual generalform but are

specifically enumerated, then it shall have to be seen if therules made are

protected by the limits prescribed by the parent Act.”

20. Reverting back, a perusal of Rule 6, 9 and 11 shows that the same are

primarily to ensure that matters pertaining to membership and elections are

administered fairly which was the very object of framing these rules.

Defining the manner of conduct of elections and providing mechanism for

resolution of disputes, if any, by way of framing specific rules furthers the

cause of democratic process in conduct of elections. A well defined

electoral process helps maintaining dignity of institution of judiciary as a

whole of which the Bar is an integral part. Although bias on part of members

of Bar Council is also alleged but it will not be out of place to mention that

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 18 )

members of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana are elected from

amongst members of all the Bar Associations of Punjab and Haryana and

are not confined to one particular State or district or sub-division. Under

these circumstances it can not be said that the Rules foster any kind of biases

or partisan politics.

21.The petitioners have not been able to show any violation of fundamental

rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India or any manifest

arbitrariness/unreasonableness in the rules or any non-conformity or

repugnancy of the rules with any statute/law/enactment so as to hold the

2015 Rules as ultra-vires in any manner. The Division Bench, in Mohinder

Singh Chauhan’s case(supra), while noticing shortcomings in the earlier

election processes, had directed framing of uniform rules to ensure purity,

fairness, transparency and democratic values in the annual elections of Bar.

The rules duly serve the purpose subservient to the observations made by

this Court in Mohinder Singh’s case(supra) pursuance whereto these rules

were made. Nothing to the contrary could be pointed out by learned counsel

for the petitioner. Consequently, the rules are held to be intra-vires.

22.Electoral process being unfair :

As far as the second grievance that electoral process pertaining to election of

office bearers of DBA Rohtak for the years 2056-26 was unfair is concerned,

it is apposite to refer to Rule 11 of Bar Associations (Constitution and

Registrations) Rules, 2015 , which is extracted herein-under:

“11. Role of the Bar Council

a.In case of any dispute in connection with the Voter list in elections of the

office bearers the matter will be taken up by the Bar Council suo-moto or on

the basis of complaint filed by any effected member and the decision of the

Bar Council will be final.

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 19 )

b.That in order to resolve the above said dispute or to decide any dispute the

Chairman of the Bar Council will constitute a committee of three members of

the Bar Council whose decision will be final.

c.In case any dispute arises after the declaration of the result the aggrieved

party shall approach the Bar Council by way of Election Petition within 15

days of the declaration of the result accompanied by a fee of Rs. 5,000/-.

d.After the receipt of the Election Petition the Chairman of the Bar Council

shall constitute an Election Tribunal consisting of Three Elected Members of

the Bar Council and the said Election Petition will be decided expeditiously

preferably within 2 months. And the decision of the Tribunal shall be final.

e.No Civil Court would havejurisdiction toentertainanydispute with the regard

to the Election of the Bar Association.(now repealed)

f.The Bar Council shall have the power to cancel the certificate of registration

and recognition granted to any Bar Association under these Rules after

providing an opportunity of being heard to the concerned parties.”

23.A perusal of Rule 11(c) shows that the petitioners had a remedy of filing an

election petition for redressal of their grievances. Infact petitions by some

other members were filed as has also been admitted by the petitoners. A

perusal of fee-receipts(Annexure P-44) shows filing of election petitions by

Sakshi Lamba, Jyoti Rana, Sudeep Kalkal and Sushila Deswal.

24. A division Bench of this Court in CWP 27933 of 2024, Ranjodh Singh Sarao

vs. Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana & others, wherein also the election

process had been challenged held as under:

“4.After hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and perusing the record

made available to us, this Court is of the considered view that interference by

judicial orders in the election process, after it has commenced, ought to be to

the minimum. The object behind this concept is to allow completion of

unhindered election process in a time bound manner to enable democratically

elected body to govern the affairs before the term of previous elected body

expires. Any irregularity or illegality in the can be dealt with in an election

dispute under clause 11(d) of the Bar Associations (Constitution and

Registration) Rules, 2015, framed by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana,

Chandigarh which provides for remedy of Election Petition before the Bar

Council.

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 20 )

5.This Court further finds that all the submissions and objections raised by

learned counsel for the petitioner involve disputed which ought not to be

gone into while exercising writ jurisdiction and should be left to the forum

meant for the purpose, i.e. Bar Council, after conclusion of elections.

6.Therefore, this Court declines to interfere at this stage in the election process

and allows the same to be concluded, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the

remedy of Election Petition before the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana.”

25.The ratio of above referred judgement leaves no manner of doubt that such

like disputes arising out of election process pertaining to election of Office

Bearers of Bar Associations should ideally be left to be adjudicated/resolved

by the Election Tribunal constituted in terms of Rule 11 of Bar Associations

(Constitution and Registration) Rules, 2015. Since elections to office bearers

of DBA Rohtak have already been conducted and result has been declared,

any candidate or any member aggrieved by the same could approach the Bar

Council Punjab and Haryana by way of filing an Election Petition. A

grievance remedial procedure having been provided under the rules, this

Court does not deem it appropriate to step in when the person aggrieved has

chosen not avail the same without there being anything to justify such

inaction.

26. Suspension of licence of petitioner no.2 :

The main grievance of petitioner no.2 is against order dated 13.3.2025

(Annexure P-40), passed by Disciplinary committee of BC-P&H, vide which

his license has been suspended for a period of 5 years. It is contended that

the said order is a malicious order passed at the behest of his adversaries.

Before proceeding to consider the aforesaid contention it is apposite to refer

to the statutory redressal mechanism provided under the Advocates Act

1961, particularly against orders passed in disciplinary proceedings. Section

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 21 )

37 and 38 of the Advocates Act 1961 read as under:

“37. Appeal to the Bar Council of India.―

(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the disciplinary committee of a State Bar

Council made under section 35 or the Advocate-General of the State may, within

sixty days of the date of the communication of the order to him, prefer an appeal to

the Bar Council of India.

(2)Every such appeal shall be heard by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council

of India which may pass such order including an order varying the punishment

awarded by the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Councilthereon as it deems

fit:

Provided that no order of the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council shall

be varied by the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India so as to

prejudicially affect the person aggrieved without giving him reasonable

opportunity of being heard.

38.Appeal to the Supreme Court.―Any person aggrieved by an order made by the

disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India under section 36 or section 37

or the Attorney-General of India or the Advocate-General of the State concerned,

as the case may be, may, within sixty days of the date on which the order is

communicated to him, prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme

Court may pass such order including an order varying the punishment awarded by

the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India thereon as it deems fit:

Provided that no order of the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of India

shall be varied by the Supreme Court so as to prejudicially affect the person

aggrieved without giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

27. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution, in a given case, although may not entertain a writ petition

inter- alia on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, but the said

rule cannot be said to be of universal application. Despite existence of an

alternative remedy, a writ Court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of

judicial review inter alia in cases where the Court or the tribunal lacks

inherent jurisdiction or for enforcement of a fundamental right or if there has

been a violation of a principle of natural justice or where vires of the act is in

CWP-9591-2025 (O&M) ( 22 )

question.

28. In the present case, not only an efficacious remedy by way of appeal is

available but infact the petitioner is already availing of such remedy. The

petitioner has already instituted an appeal against the suspension order dated

13.03.2025, which is pending before the statutory appellate authority i.e. Bar

Council of India. Filing of the instant writ petition insofar as it relates to the

same cause of action would hardly be justified in the absence of any other

special reason. The petitioner no.2 through this collateral attack via writ

jurisdiction while his statutory appeal is pending, is trying to avail two

parallel remedies in the garb of constitutional violations. The same virtually

amounts to abusing the legal process. As such, we do not find it to be a case

fit for exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

of India so as to set aside order dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure P-40).

29. As a sequel of the discussion made above, we do not find any ground for

issuance of any writ as is prayed for. The petition, as such, being sans merit

is dismissed.

( GURVINDER SINGH GILL )

JUDGE

08.9.2025 ( DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA )

Pankaj JUDGE

Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No

Whether Reportable Yes / No