In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh 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:

(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:

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 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