This order does not decide whether the 2016 circular was valid. The Bar Council withdrew the circular, so the petition became infructuous, and the Court did not examine the challenge on its merits. The resolution's reasons are not set out in the order.
- Case
- Rishabh Duggal v. Bar Council of India through its Chairman
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- Chief Justice of India; Joymalya Bagchi; V. Mohana
- Case numbers
- W.P.(C) 1023/2016
- Outcome
- Record of proceedings disposing of the writ petition as infructuous after the Bar Council withdrew the impugned circular; the validity of the circular was not adjudicated.
Circular withdrawn; petition disposed of as infructuous
The Supreme Court has closed Rishabh Duggal's writ petition challenging a 2016 circular of the Bar Council of India, after the Council withdrew the circular by a resolution dated 5 November 2026.
A bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, took the resolution on record on 6 November 2026 and disposed of the petition as having become infructuous. The pending applications in the matter also stand disposed of.
The order brings to an end a petition that had been pending before the Court since 2016, without any ruling on whether the circular itself was valid.
A petition pending since 2016
The petition, Writ Petition (Civil) 1023 of 2016, challenged the Bar Council's circular dated 17 September 2016. It was listed as item 28 before Court No. 1 on 6 November 2026.
The record of proceedings lists a series of pending applications in the matter, including an application for clarification or direction, an ex parte stay application filed in 2016, applications for exemption from filing affidavits, two intervention applications, and an application for permission to file annexures. Their pendency shows how long the challenge had remained live without a final hearing on the circular's validity.
Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared for the petitioner. Appearing for the respondents were Advocate-on-Record Radhika Gautam and Additional Solicitor General K. M. Nataraj, among other counsel.
The Council produces its resolution
At the hearing, counsel for the Bar Council of India produced a resolution dated 5 November 2026, by which the earlier circular dated 17 September 2016 had been withdrawn.
The Court recorded that the new resolution was taken on record. That single development determined the fate of the petition: with the impugned circular withdrawn, there was nothing left for the Court to strike down or uphold.
The question: what remains when the impugned measure is gone?
The order answers a narrow procedural question. When the authority that issued a challenged measure withdraws the measure itself, the challenge loses its subject matter, and the Court need not decide whether the measure was lawful in the first place.
The Court did not examine the grounds on which the circular had been challenged, did not record any view on the Council's power to issue it, and did not lay down any rule about the subject the circular had regulated.
Withdrawal makes the challenge infructuous
The Court's reasoning is contained in one sentence. It held that, in view of the new resolution dated 5 November 2026, the petition was disposed of as having become infructuous.
A petition becomes infructuous when the relief it seeks can no longer serve any purpose. The petition challenged the circular of 17 September 2016, and with the Council having withdrawn that circular itself, there was nothing left for the Court to set aside.
The order also disposes of the pending applications, including the 2016 application for an ex parte stay and the intervention applications, so no part of the proceeding survives.
Petition closed; no ruling on validity
The writ petition stands disposed of as infructuous, and all pending applications stand disposed of with it.
The practical effect is that the circular dated 17 September 2016 no longer stands, because the Bar Council withdrew it, not because the Court struck it down. Anyone relying on the withdrawal must look to the Council's resolution of 5 November 2026, whose reasons are not set out in the Court's order.
The order decides nothing on the validity of the circular or on the Council's powers: the Court disposed of the petition only on the ground that it had become infructuous.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students: when a case becomes infructuous
This order is a clean example of mootness in writ practice. A court decides live disputes; when the impugned action disappears before the hearing, the petition is said to have become infructuous, and the court closes it without deciding the merits.
Notice what the petitioner gains and what is lost. The petitioner gets the practical outcome — the circular is gone — but no declaration that it was unlawful, and no precedent to cite in the next case. A withdrawal by the authority is not the same as a judicial finding, and later disputes about similar measures would have to be argued afresh.
Also notice the procedural hygiene: the Court took the resolution on record first, then disposed of the petition, and then disposed of every pending application in terms. When a main petition ends, its interim applications do not linger.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the Supreme Court dispose of the petition as infructuous instead of deciding whether the 2016 circular was valid?
- What did the Bar Council of India place before the Court on 6 November 2026, and what did the Court do with it?
- What happened to the pending interim applications when the petition was disposed of?
