The privilege committee of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana (BCPH) has put on notice 16 lawyers, including two senior advocates, of the high court over alleged attempts of “bench hunting” to obtain a favourable order in an alleged case of corruption involving a Gurugram-based realtor and former special CBI court judge in Haryana.
The committee also sought responses from Supreme Court advocates, senior advocate and Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi and former attorney general Mukul Rohatgi, stating their responses are necessary to “fairly and comprehensively adjudicate the matter in hand”.
The committee, chaired by Raj Kumar Chauhan, was constituted on August 4 by BCPH chairman Rakesh Gupta after members of the Bar council pointed out that some advocates of the Punjab and Haryana high court were resorting to bench hunting to secure “favourable orders” from a particular bench or avoiding to appear before another.
Bench hunting or forum shopping refers to petitioners managing to get their cases heard by a particular judge or bench to ensure a favourable order.
“This committee is of the prima facie view that there appears to be foul play on the part of certain advocates who appeared on behalf of Roop Bansal, a real estate builder, and it appears these advocates may have manipulated procedural rules for convenience and gain,” the privilege committee observed after going through the record of the case.
“It is painful and disturbing for the committee to discuss here how tactfully, systematically and in an organised manner, some of the advocates made efforts to hunt the bench. From the records, prima facie it appears that JK Singla, advocate, orchestrated the game plan. But it is highly unbelievable, that this can be done singularly, rather it has been done in an organised manner and there might be some big ingenious minded advocates behind the curtains, which has to be unearthed,” it said.
{{/usCountry}}“It is painful and disturbing for the committee to discuss here how tactfully, systematically and in an organised manner, some of the advocates made efforts to hunt the bench. From the records, prima facie it appears that JK Singla, advocate, orchestrated the game plan. But it is highly unbelievable, that this can be done singularly, rather it has been done in an organised manner and there might be some big ingenious minded advocates behind the curtains, which has to be unearthed,” it said.
{{/usCountry}}The council is the statutory body with 1.5 lakh members across two states and Chandigarh. It has regulatory control over the Bars and regulates entry into the legal profession and also adjudicates complaints against lawyers. It was established under the Advocates Act, 1961, and is headquartered at Chandigarh.
The advocates, who have been served notice through Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, are 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 and two senior advocates Rakesh Nehra and Puneet Bali.
All of them have been told to respond by August 16.
These proceedings emanate from a petition filed by real estate firm M3M’s director Roop Bansal in high court seeking quashing of an FIR filed by the Haryana anti-corruption bureau in April 2023 against himself and others, including former special CBI court judge Sudhir Parmar.
The case stems from an April 2023 case, registered against Sudhir Parmar, Roop Bansal and others under Sections 7, 8, 11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of IPC for offences relating to a public servant being bribed, a public servant taking undue advantage without consideration from person concerned in proceedings or business transacted by such public servant, criminal misconduct by a public servant and criminal conspiracy.
Sudhir Parmar, who was then special CBI judge, Panchkula, was accused of alleged favouritism towards Bansal and others who were accused in FIRs being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the Enforcement Directorate, pending before his court.
Bansal’s case was withdrawn by chief justice Sheel Nagu through an administrative decision in May from a judge and assigned it to himself after some “complaints”. While hearing this petition, the chief justice had orally hinted at possible cases of “bench hunting” in these proceedings during an open court hearing. However, subsequently, the chief justice also recused from hearing the case. The case is now being heard by the bench of justice Manjari Nehru Kaul.
The committee asserted that “legal ethics are not optional”. “They are sacred. Upholding the dignity of this noble profession requires moral courage, compassion, and unwavering commitment to truth,” it said, adding to ascertain whether these advocates have indulged at any stage in bench hunting, the notices are being issued to these lawyers.