New DelhiA bench of justice Amit Bansal, however, restrained the advocates from accessing the location where the counting of votes was taking place. (Representative photo)The Delhi High Court on Wednesday stayed until October 7 the Bar Council of Delhi’s (BCD) order to suspend former Delhi High Court Bar Association (DHCBA) president Rajiv Khosla and three advocates over allegations of misconduct during the February council elections, on the grounds that such a decision affects their livelihood.A bench of justice Amit Bansal, however, restrained the advocates from accessing the location where the counting of votes was taking place.“Why would you suspend them? It affects their right to livelihood. In the meanwhile, the following directions contained in the impugned show cause notice shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing, but this is subject to the petitioners not accessing the areas where the counting is taking place, i.e., 7th floor of the high court building,” the court said in its order.The four advocates moved court against an April 26 decision made by the BCD secretary after the election committee (EC) submitted minutes of a meeting regarding an incident that occurred in the S-Block of the Delhi High Court a day before. In it, the four lawyers were accused of attempting to forcibly stop the returning officer, EC members, and counting staff from entering the counting venue and of using abusive language.The elections were a first since the Bar Council of India dissolved the BCD last October and constituted a three-member special committee, headed by additional solicitor general Chetan Sharma, to take over its functions.In a three-page letter sent to the four lawyers after the incident, BCD had barred the lawyers from entering the precincts of the Delhi High Court and issued show cause notice, asking them to explain why disciplinary action, including suspension of their licence to practice for three years, should not be taken for alleged professional misconduct.In their petition, the suspended advocates contended that the decision was taken without granting them an opportunity to be heard. They said the committee did not have the jurisdiction to pass such an order, adding that it had “far-reaching consequences”.However, BCD lawyer Kiritman Singh opposed the petition, asserting that the April 25 incident was serious and catastrophic enough to justify their suspension.