The Punjab and Haryana High Court stopped the Bar Association from taking action against Advocate Prithvi Raj Yadav for filing a PIL on encroachments. The Bench said disciplinary proceedings “virtually amount to interference in justice.”
Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday strongly criticized its Bar Association for starting disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer who had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding illegal structures and encroachments such as dhabas and kiosks inside the High Court premises.
A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry passed an order stopping the High Court Bar Association (HCBA) from taking any strict or coercive action against the petitioner, Advocate Prithvi Raj Yadav.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu questioned the Bar Association’s stand and asked:
“Where is the misconduct? This [disciplinary action] is interference in the process of justice, this PIL. This virtually amounts to interference.”
The Court further noted that the issue raised by Advocate Yadav was in fact something that the Bar Association itself should have taken up.
The Bench observed:
“It appears it is your cause. You should have raised it. He is trying to remove encroachments.”
Advocate Yadav’s PIL had earlier pushed the Chandigarh administration to start removing dhabas and vendors near the High Court building.
However, the Bar Association objected to this removal, claiming that there were already very few facilities for both lawyers and litigants and the action would hurt their convenience.
In July 2023, the High Court had stayed this removal process and had asked all stakeholders for their suggestions on how to deal with the situation.
Later in July this year, the High Court administration said that only a few spaces had been rented out by it, while most of the areas were under the control of the HCBA. After this statement, the Bench asked the HCBA to give details about which items and facilities are essential for lawyers.
During the hearing on Tuesday, the Court was informed that the Bar Association had started disciplinary proceedings against Advocate Yadav.
ALSO READ: Gujarat Court Summons Abhisar Sharma & Raju Parulekar in Adani Group Defamation Case
Representing the HCBA, Senior Advocate Rupinder Singh Khosla said that they would soon file a reply to Yadav’s application regarding this issue.
He further added:
“But I reiterate that this is not the forum for him to espouse…”
According to the HCBA, the PIL filed by Yadav was against the Association’s interests and could also harm its financial position. Because of this, it had set up a three-member disciplinary committee to take action against him.
The High Court Bench however made it very clear that the Bar Association could not stop any lawyer from approaching the Court with a public cause.
Senior Advocate Khosla argued that the PIL was not actually in public interest since the facilities being questioned were not provided by the Chandigarh administration.
He said:
“It is the Bar Association providing these facilities.”
In response, Chief Justice Nagu said that it did not matter if the Bar Association did not consider the case as one of public interest. The Bench asked whether the HCBA did not even have trust in the Court.
To this, Khosla said that the Association had no trust in the High Court administration, especially in matters relating to facilities for lawyers.
He stated:
“UT administration is not there. The High Court has not done anything…I have been here for the last 37 years, the High Court on the administrative side has not done anything for lawyers or clients. I have no trust. Your lordships may record it….We (HCBA) are forced to do all these things. Let’s take one example: the cafeteria cannot house more than 80 people. What has the High Court done to provide a cafeteria? Nothing! What has UT administration done? Nothing! Only now has something been done for kachha parking.”
After hearing this, the Court directed Khosla to file his reply to Yadav’s application against the HCBA’s disciplinary action. The matter will now be heard on September 19.
It is important to note that in an earlier order passed in Yadav’s PIL, the Court had already stopped the Bar Association from collecting any parking fee from litigants, employees, government officers, and lawyers who visit the High Court.
In Tuesday’s hearing, Advocate PR Yadav appeared in person. Advocates Kanwal Goyal and Sheena Dahiya represented the High Court. Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain with Senior Panel Counsel NK Vashisth appeared for the Union of India. Standing Counsel JS Chandail represented the Chandigarh administration.
Senior Advocate Rupinder Singh Khosla, along with Advocates Yogender Verma and Gagandeep Singh Jammu (HCBA Secretary), argued for the HCBA. Senior Deputy Advocate General Salil Sabhlok represented the State of Punjab, while Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan appeared for the State of Haryana.
Case Title:
Prithvi Raj Yadav v. Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others.
Read Order:
Click Here To Read More Reports on Waqf Amendment Bill
