The Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana has given a clean chit to Senior Advocates Rakesh Nehra and Puneet Bali in the bench hunting probe. The Committee said no evidence surfaced against them and their integrity remains untarnished.
Chandigarh: The Privilege Committee of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana (BCPH) has cleared Senior Advocates Rakesh Nehra and Puneet Bali in connection with the ongoing inquiry into allegations of bench hunting before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
In its order dated August 21, the Committee said that both the senior advocates, along with their associates, had fully cooperated in the probe and no evidence had come up against them. According to the Committee, their professional reputation and integrity remain intact, and nothing further was required from their offices.
The Committee observed,
“Upon perusal of the records and replies submitted, the Committee is of the considered view that further assistance from the offices of Sh. Rakesh Nehra and Sh. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocates, is not required in the present inquiry. No material has surfaced against them or their associates, namely Sh. Sauhard Singh, Advocate, Rupender Singh, Advocate, Ms. Bindu Tanwar, Advocate, Sh. Ankit Yadav, Advocate, Sh. Anmol Chandan, Advocate, Sh. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate, and Sh. Aakash Sharma, Advocate. On the contrary, both Senior Advocates have extended full cooperation throughout, reflecting their commitment to transparency, integrity, and the highest standards of professional ethics. The Committee, therefore, records that the reputation and integrity of Sh. Rakesh Nehra and Sh. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocates, along with their associates, remain untarnished, and no further information is required from their offices.”
Earlier, the Privilege Committee had issued notices to several senior lawyers, including Nehra and Bali, in relation to their appearance in a case where allegations of bench hunting had been raised. The matter itself is linked to bribery allegations against a judicial officer.
A businessman, who is a co-accused in that case, filed a petition seeking quashing of the proceedings. Many judges, including the Chief Justice, stepped aside from hearing the petition.
Both Senior Advocates Nehra and Bali had appeared for the businessman on different dates. The case became high-profile in May after certain complaints reached the court.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu transferred the matter from Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, who had already heard the case at length and had reserved it for judgment. The Chief Justice then began hearing the case himself.
But after spending considerable time on it, he recused on the ground that he had already dealt with the case on the administrative side while delisting it from Justice Sindhu.
Following this, Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi also recused from hearing the petition. During a May hearing, Chief Justice Nagu had openly pointed to possible bench hunting, stating that a particular lawyer was appointed as filing counsel solely to have the case reassigned from a specific judge.
The Privilege Committee of the BCPH was later given the task of investigating these allegations and reporting its findings. While giving a clean chit to Senior Advocates Nehra and Bali, the Committee made some strong observations on the larger issue that came to light.
It stated,
“Strategy of ‘Bench Hunting’ appears to have been orchestrated by vested interests forming a clandestine nexus among certain elements of the Real Estate, Financial, and Industrial sectors. By wielding monetary influence, they have attempted to undermine the administration of justice. The Committee likens this phenomenon to the poliovirus: it silently attacks the spinal cord, leading to weakness and paralysis.”
The Committee further warned that the “virus” of bench hunting and forum shopping has slowly spread into the legal system.
It added,
“While many acknowledge its existence, few raise their voices, thereby endangering the nobility of the profession. The powerful lobbies of real estate and industry are attempting to erode this noble profession through their wealth and influence.”
Because of the seriousness of the issue, the Committee has now called upon lawyers, affected individuals, and members of the public to provide any information or complaints regarding such practices.
For this, it has made public its official email address and WhatsApp contact. As per the Committee, information can be shared on privilegecommitteebcph@gmail.com or via WhatsApp at 77400-03408.
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.
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.
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 ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
