The privilege committee of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana (BCPH) has found no evidence of alleged attempts of “bench hunting” to secure a favourable order in an alleged corruption case, involving a Gurugram-based realtor and former special CBI court judge in Haryana.
The BCPH had initiated proceedings in August and issued notices to 16 lawyers, including two senior advocates. Initially, the Council had questioned the role of some lawyers and suggested that prime facie evidence existed against certain individuals. However, the BCPH has now said that the privilege committee, which investigated the matter “found no credible evidence of any coordinated effort or manipulation aimed at securing a favourable order from a particular bench.”
“Bench hunting” or “forum shopping” refers to petitioners managing to get their cases heard by a particular judge or bench to obtain a favourable ruling. The proceedings originated 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 Parmar, Bansal, and others for corruption and related offences.
Bansal’s case was withdrawn by chief justice Sheel Nagu through an administrative decision in May from a judge and assigned it to himself after certain complaints.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.
{{/usCountry}}Bansal’s case was withdrawn by chief justice Sheel Nagu through an administrative decision in May from a judge and assigned it to himself after certain complaints.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.
{{/usCountry}}