As per case facts, the petitioners, who are Advocates, challenged the electoral process for the District Bar Association, Rohtak, the Bar Associations (Constitution and Registrations) Rules, 2015, alleging them to ... be ultra-vires, and the suspension of petitioner No.2's license for five years by an order dated 13.3.2025. Petitioner No.2 was the past President and was suspended for calling a strike, which allegedly disrupted judicial work. The petitioners sought quashing of the electoral process and rules, and a fresh election under High Court observation. An appeal against the suspension order was already pending before the Bar Council of India. The question arose whether the 2015 Rules were ultra-vires or violated fundamental rights, if the election process was unfair, and if the High Court should intervene in the suspension order when an alternative remedy was available. Finally, the High Court upheld the vires of the 2015 Rules, citing previous judgments. It noted that electoral disputes should be resolved through Election Petitions to the Bar Council as per Rule 11, and declined to interfere with the concluded elections or the suspension order, as an appeal was pending, emphasizing the availability and use of statutory alternative remedies.