In a recent legal development, the Rajasthan Bar Council had issued an order mandating simultaneous elections for all bar associations across the state. This decision faced opposition from various bar associations, prompting them to challenge the directive in the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the apex court did not grant relief to the dissenting bar associations.

The bench, comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, dismissed the petition and advised the bar associations to approach the High Court once again if they felt their concerns had not received a fair hearing. Despite the setback, the Supreme Court directed the State Legal Authority (SLA) to file a review petition and relieved them of their current duties.

Reacting to the Supreme Court's decision, Kapil Prakash Mathur, Vice Chairman of the Bar Council of Rajasthan, expressed his congratulations to all lawyers in the state. With the SLA relieved, Mathur stated that the path is now clear for the Bar Association elections in Rajasthan. He called upon lawyers under the Supreme Court, Rajasthan High Court, and the Bar Council of Rajasthan to actively participate in the elections scheduled for December 8th.

The Bar Council of Rajasthan announced that December 8th would be celebrated as Advocate Voting Day, signaling a call to action for lawyers to engage in the democratic process. P.R. Singariya, the Chairman of the Bar Council of Rajasthan, addressed concerns raised by colleagues about the incomplete term of the election process. However, with the SLA's relief, the Bar Association elections are confirmed to proceed as scheduled on December 8th.

It was revealed that the SLA had presented a challenge to the Bar Association elections in the Supreme Court, but their duties have now been terminated. Despite concerns about the incomplete terms in various bar associations, the relief of the SLA has paved the way for the confirmed elections. The challenge against the orders of the Bar Council of Rajasthan and the Rajasthan High Court was initiated by the Rajasthan High Court Advocate Association Jodhpur Kota and other bar associations.

Advocate Ajay Singh, representing the petitioners, raised objections to the simultaneous elections, emphasizing that many bar associations had not completed their terms. He questioned the feasibility of holding elections in places where the terms had not concluded and highlighted that their side was not adequately heard in the High Court. In response, the Supreme Court, while dismissing the petition, directed the aggrieved parties to present their grievances in a review petition in the Rajasthan High Court, encouraging them to seek modifications there.