The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition that sought to restrain Justice D.Y. Chandrachud from being sworn in as the 50th Chief Justice of India.

The apex court bench, led by Chief Justice U.U. Lalit, said the plea that alleged “misconduct” and cited certain “illegal orders” was “completely misconceived”.

The bench, which included Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, also declined petitioner and advocate Mursalin Asjit Shaikh’s plea that took exception to CJI Lalit hearing the case as he had recommended Justice Chandrachud as his successor.

Justice Chandrachud will be sworn in as the next Chief Justice of India on November 9 after CJI Lalit demits office after a brief tenure of 74 days.

The bench agreed to hear Shaikh’s plea at 12.45pm on Wednesday instead of Thursday as urged by the advocate.

When the matter came up for hearing, Shaikh insisted that CJI Lalit should recuse himself or else there would be a conflict of interest as he had recommended Justice Chandrachud as his successor.

However, the CJI refused to buy the argument.

“Tell us, why should there be a conflict of issue? Today we are only on the issue as to whether you have made a case or not?” Justice Lalit said and proceeded to hear the matter.

The counsel then said he mainly had two issues. The first issue, he said, was related to an order passed by Justice Chandrachud while heading a bench on a case on Covid-19 vaccination, and the other in which his son Abhinav had appeared.

The second issue referred to by the petitioner related to a an appeal against a Bombay High Court order. The petitioner contended that since Justice Chandrachud’s son Abhinav had appeared in the original matter in Bombay High Court, Justice Chandrachud should not have dealt with the appeal against the said order in the apex court.

He argued that Justice Chandrachud did not follow certain “binding precedents” of the Supreme Court and hence should be punished for contempt.

The petitioner alleged that Justice Chandrachud had heard the matter despite a copy of the special leave petition (SLP) mentioning the high court order and his son’s name.

Further, he said Justice Chandrachud had passed an ex-parte order against the appeal without hearing the other parties or the state government.

An ex-parte order is passed by the court in the absence of the other side in a dispute.

Justice Lalit asked the petitioner to show proof from records that the said high court order was annexed to the SLP. The counsel perused his paper book but could not produce the evidence. He then requested the court to adjourn the matter till Thursday.

But the bench declined to do so.

“Whatever you wish to argue, you argue now,” the CJI said.

When the counsel was unable not produce any evidence, the bench dismissed the petition saying: “We find no reason to entertain the petition. In our considered view, the entire petition is completely misconceived and the petition is therefore dismissed.”.

Earlier also, Bar bodies like the Bar Council of India and the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) had strongly condemned the “vilification” of senior-most judge Chandrachud and termed the allegation of misuse of office against him as an attempt to “malign” his image while he was being considered for elevation as the CJI.

The bar bodies had deprecated the complaint of one “Supreme Court and High Court Litigant Association” with the President of India and others against the judge.