The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition demanding that Justice DY Chandrachud be restrained from taking oath as the next chief justice of India, PTI reported.

Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju announced on October 17 that Justice Chandrachud would be appointed as the 50th chief justice of India. The judge will take oath on November 9, a day after incumbent Chief Justice UU Lalit demits office.

The petition, filed by a man named Mursalin Asijith Shaikh, was mentioned for urgent listing on Wednesday. Shaikh’s lawyer had sought a hearing on Thursday, but the court decided to hear it on Wednesday itself.

The plea was based on a letter written by a man named Rashid Khan Pathan to President Droupadi Murmu, making several allegations against Justice Chandrachud. Pathan claims to be the president of the Supreme Court and High Court Litigant Association.

Pathan claimed that Justice Chandrachud had heard a special leave petition related to proceedings before the Bombay High Court even as his son was among the lawyers of the litigants. Pathan had also alleged that the judge disregarded settled law while dismissing a petition questioning restrictions on citizens who had not taken the coronavirus vaccine.

Last month, the Bar Council of India said that as per its information, the litigants before the Supreme Court were different from those before the High Court.

The council also said that the Supreme Court’s directions did not show that Justice Chandrachud was aware that his son had appeared before the High Court in a related case.

However, the petitioner’s lawyer claimed on Wednesday that this could not be the case, as the High Court’s order was annexed to the petition. Subsequently, Chief Justice Lalit asked the lawyer to show proof of his claim.

The lawyer attempted to find the annexure for some time and then sought that the case be heard on Thursday. The chief justice, however, did not agree to the request. “You said that you were prepared and that is why we decided to hear,” he said, according to Live Law.

As the lawyer could not argue further, the court dismissed the petition, describing it as misconceived.