Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail to Wife in Matrimonial Suicide Case 'Convenience Of Wife Not A Thumb Rule, But Custody Of Minor Child Is A Weighing Aspect': Punjab & Haryana HC Transfers Divorce Case To Rohtak MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Cooperative Society Is A “Veritable Party” To Arbitration Clause In Flat Agreements, Temple Trust Entitled To Arbitrate As Non-Signatory: Bombay High Court State Government Cannot Review Its Own Revisional Orders Under Section 41(3): Allahabad High Court Affirms Legal Bar on Successive Reviews When Several Issues Arise, Courts Must Answer Each With Reasons: Supreme Court Automatic Retention Trumps Lessee Tag: Calcutta High Court Declares Saregama India ‘Raiyat’, Directs Reconsideration of Land Conversion Application Recovery of Valid Ticket Raises Presumption of Bona Fide Travel – Burden Shifts to Railways: Delhi High Court Restores Railway Accident Claim Failure to Frame Issue on Limitation Vitiates Award of Compensation Under Telegraph Act: Gauhati High Court Sets Aside Order, Remands Matter Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Heritable Right: Gujarat High Court Rejects 9-Year Delayed Claim, Orders Re-Issuance of ₹4 Lakh Compensation Court Cannot Rewrite Contracts to Suit Contractor’s Convenience: Kerala High Court Upholds Termination of Road Work Under Risk and Cost Clause Post-Bail Conduct Is Irrelevant in Appeal Against Grant of Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Crucial Distinction Between Appeal and Cancellation Granting Anticipatory Bail to a Long-Absconding Accused Makes a Mockery of the Judicial Process: Supreme Court Cracks Down on Pre-Arrest Bail in Murder Case Recognition as an Intangible Asset Does Not Confer Ownership: Supreme Court Draws a Sharp Line Between Accounting Entries and Property Rights IBC Cannot Be the Guiding Principle for Restructuring the Ownership and Control of Spectrum: Supreme Court Reasserts Public Trust Over Natural Resources Courts Cannot Convict First and Search for Law Later: Supreme Court Faults Prosecution for Ignoring Statutory Foundation in Cement Case When the Law Itself Stood Withdrawn, How Could Its Violation Survive?: Supreme Court Quashes 1994 Cement Conviction Under E.C. Act Ten Years Means Ten Years – Not a Day Less: Supreme Court Refuses to Dilute Statutory Experience Requirement for SET Exemption SET in Malayalam Cannot Qualify You to Teach Economics: Supreme Court Upholds Subject-Specific Eligibility for HSST Appointments Outsourcing Cannot Become A Tool To Defeat Regularization: Supreme Court On Perennial Nature Of Government Work Once Similarly Placed Workers Were Regularized, Denial to Others Is Discrimination: Supreme Court Directs Regularization of Income Tax Daily-Wage Workers Right To Form Association Is Protected — But Not A Right To Run It Free From Regulation: Supreme Court Recalibrates Article 19 In Sports Governance S. Nithya Cannot Be Transplanted Into Cricket: Supreme Court Shields District Cricket Bodies From Judicially Imposed Structural Overhaul Will | Propounder Must Dispel Every Suspicious Circumstance — Failure Is Fatal: : Punjab & Haryana High Court Electronic Evidence Authenticity Jeopardized by Unexplained Delay and Procedural Omissions: MP High Court Rejects Belated 65B Application Not Answering to the Questions of the IO Would Not Ipso Facto Mean There Is Non-Cooperation: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Undertaking to Satisfy Award Is Not Waiver of Appeal: Supreme Court Restores Insurer’s Statutory Right

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