The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the registration of an FIR and an investigation by an Inspector General-rank Special Investigation Team after a lawyer reported threats allegedly linked to jailed gangsters. The Court said an attempt to force counsel to withdraw a case strikes directly at the administration of justice.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Chandigarh Police to register an FIR and constitute a Special Investigation Team headed by an officer of the rank of Inspector General of Police after counsel for a petitioner alleged that he was threatened from an international number and told to withdraw a plea seeking a fair investigation.
Justice N.S. Shekhawat described the alleged attempt to intimidate counsel as interference with the administration of justice and a “direct attack on the institution”. The Court further observed that the incident appeared to raise serious questions about a possible nexus involving criminals, jail personnel and police officials.
The observations were made in Surpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab & Others, a petition in which the petitioner has alleged that her husband was falsely implicated in a narcotics case at the instance of accused persons who were allegedly operating an illegal drug network from jail and had links with gangsters. The allegations remain subject to investigation and have not been adjudicated.
Seven Voice Messages And 17 Missed Calls Alleged
Advocate Gobind Singh Randhawa, appearing for the petitioner, informed the Court that at about 10:48 pm on September 22, 2026, he received a call from an unknown international number. According to counsel, the caller claimed to have a wide network in Punjab and across the border and alleged that certain jail and police officials were working with them.
Counsel said he disconnected the call but subsequently received seven recorded voice messages and 17 missed calls. The messages allegedly complained that certain persons were facing difficulty in using mobile phones inside jail because of the pending case and demanded that the petition be withdrawn.
It was further alleged that the caller claimed to possess information about counsel’s family and threatened consequences if he continued with the matter. An application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 was then moved seeking protection for counsel and his family.
FIR, IG-Led SIT And Threat Assessment Ordered
On counsel’s oral request, the Court impleaded the Union Territory of Chandigarh as a respondent. The Public Prosecutor for Chandigarh, who was present, accepted notice.
The Court directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, to register an FIR on the basis of the application submitted by counsel. It also directed the Director General of Police, Chandigarh, to immediately constitute an SIT headed by an IG-rank officer to conduct a fair and impartial investigation.
The SIT has been given liberty to examine the role of any criminals, police officials and jail officials who may be involved and to take appropriate action against officials if incriminating material emerges during the investigation. The Court also asked the SSP, Chandigarh, to assess the threat perception faced by counsel and his family and take protective measures in accordance with law.
Expressing an expectation that those responsible for the alleged threats would be arrested without delay, the Court directed the head of the SIT to file a status report through an affidavit.
Court Flags Possible Criminal Contempt
The High Court said that threatening an advocate to compel withdrawal of a pending case plainly interferes with the judicial process. It observed that such conduct could make out a case of criminal contempt because it seeks to obstruct a litigant’s access to the Court through intimidation of counsel.
The Court’s concern extended beyond the safety of one lawyer. It noted that gangsters had earlier been accused of threatening members of the public, but an alleged attempt to obstruct proceedings before a constitutional court presented a direct institutional challenge that could not be treated lightly.
Background Of The Main Petition
The High Court had issued notice in the main petition on September 14, 2026. The State of Punjab accepted notice and the Court sought paragraph-wise replies through affidavits from the concerned authorities. It also directed the Station House Officer of Police Station Ghuman in Batala district to inform the concerned private respondents in writing about the pendency of the case.
On the subsequent date, a status report filed through an affidavit of the Director General of Police, Punjab, was taken on record. The protection application was moved after counsel reported receiving the alleged call and messages shortly before the hearing.
Why The Direction Matters
The order treats intimidation of a lawyer not merely as a private threat but as a threat to the ability of courts to function. If advocates can be coerced into abandoning cases, the immediate victim is counsel, but the wider consequence is denial of effective legal representation and obstruction of a litigant’s right to seek judicial remedies.
By placing the investigation under an IG-rank officer and expressly permitting scrutiny of possible links between criminals and public officials, the Court has sought to insulate the probe from the very influence alleged in the petition. At the same time, its directions do not amount to findings against any named person; the allegations will have to be tested through investigation and due process.
The matter has been directed to be listed in the urgent category on October 30, 2026, when the Court is expected to consider the SIT’s status report and further developments.
Case Title: Surpreet Kaur v. State of Punjab & Others
Bench: Justice N.S. Shekhawat, Punjab and Haryana High Court
Petitioner’s Counsel: Senior Advocate P.S. Sekhon and Advocate Gobind Singh Randhawa
For U.T. Chandigarh: Public Prosecutor Manish Bansal
Next Date: October 30, 2026