The Supreme Court on Thursday (October 29) declined to entertain a petition filed by an advocate challenging the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana's decision to conduct an election to fill up the casual vacancy which arose following the recommendation for the elevation of an elected member as a Judge of the High Court.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh heard the petition filed by advocate Chetan Verma.

Verma had approached the Supreme Court challenging an October 9 order passed by Election Tribunal No. 2 at New Delhi, which rejected his plea seeking to be declared a member of the Bar Council against a vacancy that arose after Minderjeet Yadav, an elected member, was elevated as a judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The appeal was filed under Section 38 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Verma had contested the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana elections held in March 2026. He claimed that he had secured the highest number of votes among the unsuccessful candidates and had not been eliminated during the vote-counting process.

Following the Collegium's recommendation for Yadav's elevation to the High Court, Verma claimed that he was entitled to fill the resulting vacancy. He argued that the election process had not been fully completed when the vacancy arose.

However, the Election Tribunal rejected his claim, holding that the vacancy was a casual vacancy governed by Rules 45 and 46 of the applicable rules. It observed that the rules did not provide for the automatic induction of the highest unsuccessful candidate to fill such a vacancy.

The Tribunal held that a casual vacancy among the elected members of the Bar Council had to be filled in accordance with the prescribed procedure, which provides for an election among eligible advocates.

The Tribunal also vacated its interim order restraining the Bar Council from filling the vacancy, permitting it to proceed in accordance with law and the directions issued by the Supreme Court.

During the hearing in the Supreme Court, Advocate Jasbir Singh Malik, appearing for the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana submitted that the notification declaring the 23 elected members of the Bar Council was issued on May 5, 2026, and all 23 elected seats stood filled upon its issuance.

The counsel submitted that any vacancy arising thereafter was legally required to be treated as a casual vacancy. He further informed the Court that, in accordance with Rule 45 of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana Election Rules, 1968, an election had been held to fill the casual vacancy and the seat had been filled accordingly.

Finding no merit in the challenge, the Supreme Court was not inclined to entertain the petition. At that stage, counsel for Verma sought permission to withdraw the petition, following which it was dismissed as withdrawn.