HC dismisses plea to quash Rohtak Bar elections

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition to quash the electoral process of the District Bar Association, Rohtak, pertaining to the election for the year 2025-26. "We do not find any ground for issuance of any writ as is prayed for. The petition, as such, being sans merit is dismissed," a Bench of Justices Gurvinder Singh Gill and Deepinder Singh Nalwa stated.

The petitioners, who are enrolled as members of Bar association, Rohtak, invoked writ jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of the entire electoral process of the DBA, Rohtak, and all consequent proceedings/orders thereon; and quashing of the Bar Associations (Constitution and Registration) Rules, 2015, being ultra vires.

They had also sought quashing of the impugned disciplinary proceedings against petitioner no.2 (advocate Arvind Kumar, a former president of the DBA), including an order dated 13.03.25, vide which his licence had been suspended for five years.

"...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," the Bench maintained.

Regarding the prayer to quash disciplinary proceedings and suspension of the licence of Arvind Kumar, the orders pointed out that in the present case, not only an efficacious remedy by way of appeal was available, but in fact, the petitioner was already availing of such remedy. The petitioner had already instituted an appeal against the suspension order dated 13.03.2025, which was pending before the statutory appellate authority — the Bar Council of India.