Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court Election Petition Must Be Presented By Petitioner In Person, Non-Compliance Renders It Liable To Summary Dismissal: Supreme Court Absence Of Recovery Or Evidence Of Stolen Property Precludes Conviction Under Section 394 IPC: Supreme Court

Inaction of Punjab and Haryana Bar Council Undermines Rule of Law’ in Misconduct Probe: Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Punjab and Haryana High Court Orders Expedited Investigation into Allegations of Assault, Embezzlement, and Sexual Harassment Against Bar Members

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana to expedite the investigation into serious allegations of misconduct, including embezzlement, assault, and sexual harassment, against its members. The court, presided over by Acting Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Bahl, underscored the urgency of addressing these issues to uphold the integrity of the legal profession.

The case, CWP-PIL-100-2024, was filed by Anjali Kukar and others against the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana through its Chairman and other respondents. The petitioners alleged inaction on the part of the Bar Council regarding complaints of financial mismanagement and assault by some of its members. Notably, an incident involving the assault of petitioner No. 3, Shri Ranjeet Singh, led to the lodging of FIR No. 72 dated 01.07.2024. The FIR detailed the physical assault on Singh by respondent No. 2 and his associates at the High Court premises, prompting a wider probe into their conduct.

The court expressed dissatisfaction with the Bar Council’s delay in addressing the complaints against respondents No. 2 and 3. The petitioners had accused these individuals of defalcating and embezzling funds, and failing to provide monthly financial statements as required. The Bar Council’s counsel acknowledged that the complaint was under consideration and promised further action in compliance with the Advocates Act, 1961.

The court took a strong view of the assault on petitioner No. 3. Referring to the lodged FIR, the bench noted the need for thorough supervision by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, to ensure comprehensive investigation. “We are of the considered opinion that this action of respondent No. 2 and his assaulting petitioner No. 3 amounts to interference in the administration of justice and prima facie a case of criminal contempt is made out,” the court stated.

In a serious development, multiple complaints of sexual harassment against respondent No. 2 were brought to the court’s attention. These complaints, filed by lady advocates and employees of the Bar Association, are now to be investigated by the Bar Council as directed by the High Court. The court emphasized the duty to maintain the institution’s prestige, indicating severe consequences for non-cooperation by the accused.

The judgment highlighted the importance of swift and decisive action in maintaining the integrity of the legal profession. The court drew on established legal precedents, including the Supreme Court rulings in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and M/s PLR Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mahanadi Coalfields Limited, underscoring the illegality of strikes by Bar Association members.

The bench remarked, “The inaction of the Bar Council in dealing with serious allegations of misconduct not only undermines the rule of law but also erodes public confidence in the legal system. The gravity of the allegations necessitates immediate and thorough investigation.”

The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s directive to expedite the investigation into the allegations against Bar Council members marks a crucial step in upholding the ethical standards of the legal profession. By addressing the issues of assault, financial mismanagement, and sexual harassment, the court aims to reinforce the sanctity and respect of the legal institution. The outcome of the Bar Council’s inquiry, due within ten days, is awaited with significant interest, as it will likely have far-reaching implications for the governance and accountability within the legal fraternity.

 

Date of Decision: July 3, 2024

Anjali Kukar and others vs. Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana through its Chairman and others

 

Latest Legal News