The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana has issued notices to 16 advocates regarding allegations of bench hunting at the High Court. Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi will also be asked to respond to the Privilege Committee.
Chandigarh: The Privilege Committee of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana is preparing to seek responses from Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi regarding their involvement in a case at the Punjab and Haryana High Court where allegations of bench hunting have come up.
It is important to note that notices have already been sent to 16 other lawyers, asking them to respond to the matter.
When asked by Bar & Bench, Rohatgi said,
“How am I concerned? It’s all rubbish. I have got no such notice.”
Singhvi also denied receiving any notice. He said,
“I have received no notice and have no idea as to who is indulging in sensationalism. Incidentally, they don’t even know the elementary fact that I entered the picture in this case for the first time only after the bench hunting allegations were over i.e., I appeared only before CJ bench at a much later date after he had removed the case to his own bench and thereafter was hearing on merits. All allegations relate to the pre CJ hearing when I was not even appearing.”
The case involves bribery allegations against a judicial officer. Many judges, including the Chief Justice, have recused themselves from hearing the quashing petition filed by a businessman, who is also a co-accused in the case.
Senior Counsel Singhvi, Rohatgi, Puneet Bali, and Rakesh Nehra have appeared for the businessman on different dates. Recently, only Singhvi and Bali have appeared in the hearings.
The case gained public attention in May when, following some complaints, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu removed it from the single-judge bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, who had spent a long time hearing the matter and had reserved judgment.
Chief Justice Nagu then took over the case himself. However, after hearing it for some time, he recused himself because he had earlier handled the case on the administrative side by removing it from Justice Sindhu.
Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi is the latest judge to recuse from hearing this matter.
In a hearing in May, Chief Justice Nagu hinted at bench hunting, saying that
“a particular lawyer was taken as the filing counsel only to get the case de-listed from a particular judge.”
The Chairman of the Bar Council recently asked the Privilege Committee to take up this matter immediately and hold hearings daily until a report or recommendations could be submitted quickly.
Sources told Bar & Bench that the Committee has summoned 16 advocates, including Bali and Nehra, to appear in person or through their lawyers on August 16 to explain their position.
In the notice to these 16 lawyers, the Committee said,
“The documents placed before us are prima facie pointing towards the attempt to manipulate the Bench Assignment process of the Hon’ble High Court. The sole objective of placing this matter, suo moto, before the Committee is to uphold the dignity of the legal profession, ensure the maintenance of legal ethics, and discharge the responsibilities entrusted under the law.”
Besides senior counsel Bali and Nehra, notices have been sent to the following advocates:
- JK Singla;
- Sidharth Bhardwaj;
- Aditya Aggarwal;
- Gagandeep Singh;
- Anmol Chandan;
- Baljeet Beniwal;
- Harsh Sharma;
- Sauhard Singh;
- Rupender Singh;
- Ankit Yadav;
- Ashim Singla;
- Aakash Sharma;
- Bindu;
- APS Shergil.
The Committee has also said that it will be necessary to seek responses from Singhvi and Rohatgi to fairly and fully decide the matter.
However, it is not clear if any notices have been sent to them since they are not enrolled with the Bar Council in Chandigarh.
In the notice to the 16 lawyers, the Committee expressed that it
“is very painful and disturbing” to discuss how “tactfully, systematically and in an organized manner, some of the advocates made efforts to hunt the Bench.”
Though the Committee specifically pointed out the role of filing counsel JK Singla, it also mentioned that there might be some “big ingenious mind advocates behind the curtains.”
This ongoing investigation by the Bar Council’s Privilege Committee highlights the seriousness with which the legal profession views the allegations of bench hunting. The Committee aims to preserve the integrity and ethics of the legal system and take appropriate action after hearing from all the involved lawyers.
Background Of The Case
The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana has launched an urgent investigation into serious allegations of “bench hunting” at the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Bench hunting refers to the practice where some lawyers try to have their cases assigned to specific judges, either to secure favorable decisions or to avoid certain benches.
The Council’s Chairman, Rakesh Gupta, has directed the Privilege Committee to take swift and strict action, conducting day-to-day proceedings and submitting their findings promptly.
Gupta emphasized that the Committee is empowered to issue notices, record statements, summon records, and collect information from various sources, including the press and the High Court, under the Advocates Act.
Concerns were raised by Bar Council members after reports suggested that certain advocates in the Punjab and Haryana High Court are deliberately engaging in bench hunting to gain advantage or evade particular benches.
Such conduct is viewed as a serious misuse of lawyers’ rights under the Advocates Act and threatens the dignity and reputation of the legal profession as well as the integrity of the judicial system.
The controversy centers around a high-profile case involving bribery allegations against a judicial officer. The case was filed by a businessman who is also a co-accused. It became more complex as several judges, including the Chief Justice, recused themselves from hearing the matter. In May,
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu transferred the case from Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, who had extensively heard the matter and reserved judgment, to his own bench.
Later, Chief Justice Nagu also recused himself, citing prior administrative involvement in the case, which created a conflict of interest. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi is the latest judge to recuse.
During one of the hearings in May, Chief Justice Nagu openly suggested the possibility of bench hunting by stating that “a particular lawyer was taken as the filing counsel only to get the case de-listed from a particular judge.”
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Bench Hunting
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
