Advocate's Protection Plea Under Art. 226 Backfires; Punjab & Haryana HC Orders CBI Probe into Allegations of Demanding Bribe for Judge - 2025-09-11

Lawyer Seeking Protection Faces CBI Probe Over Allegations of Demanding Money for Judge

Chandigarh, Punjab – In a dramatic turn of events, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into serious allegations of professional misconduct against an advocate who had initially approached the court seeking police protection. Justice Sandeep Moudgil directed the CBI to investigate claims that the lawyer, Ankush Dhanerwal, demanded ₹5.45 lakh from his clients, allegedly for paying a "government pleader as well as Judge."

The case, which began as a routine writ petition for personal security, has now raised profound questions about the integrity of the legal profession and the judicial system itself.

The Initial Plea for Protection

The matter came before the High Court when Advocate Ankush Dhanerwal filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He sought protection for himself and his family, alleging threats from former clients, an ex-Sarpanch and his son (Respondents No. 5 and 6).

Dhanerwal claimed that after his clients received an "unsatisfactory" outcome in an election-related writ petition, they began pressuring him to refund his professional fees. He alleged that on multiple occasions, the respondents visited his residence armed with weapons like a ‘Gandasa’ and a ‘Kirpan’, threatening to "eliminate" his family. He further claimed they confronted and threatened him within the premises of the High Court on July 23, 2025.

Based on these initial submissions, the Court directed the Senior Superintendents of Police in Mohali and Chandigarh to assess the threat perception to the petitioner.

A Startling Counter-Narrative Emerges

The case took a sharp turn when the police submitted a status report, which included a detailed statement from the respondents. Their version of events painted a completely different picture, accusing Dhanerwal of fraud and serious professional misconduct.

The respondents stated they had paid the advocate a total of ₹4.50 lakh for an initial election petition. When that case did not yield the desired result, they alleged that Dhanerwal demanded an additional ₹5.45 lakh to re-file the matter. The most damning part of their statement was the reason given for this demand.

"...Ankush Dhanerwal, Advocate told us that he will again re-file appeal before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and would get an order from the Hon'ble Court for which he had demanded a fee of Rs.5,45,000/- shall be incurred for giving it to the government pleader as well as Judge."

The respondents claimed they paid a further ₹2.60 lakh in installments via Google Pay before the second petition was dismissed, after which the advocate allegedly began avoiding them.

Court's Rationale for CBI Intervention

Justice Sandeep Moudgil expressed grave concern over the allegations, noting their serious nature and potential impact on the entire judicial institution. The judgment highlighted the specificity of the claims, which included dates and transaction details of payments allegedly made via Google Pay.

The Court observed that the issue had expanded beyond a simple threat assessment into a complex matter involving "serious charges of alleged misconduct" against an officer of the court. The judge underscored the necessity of an independent and transparent inquiry to uphold public trust.

"Given the complexity and sensitivity of the issues ranging not only from threats to the petitioner’s life to the serious charges of alleged misconduct against him as an advocate but raises questions of integrity of an important pillar of democracy i.e. judicial institution of which the Bench & Bar are two sides of a coin and indispensable companion, an independent agency’s involvement is necessary to ensure a fair and transparent inquiry."

The Court also took judicial notice of a recent, unrelated case where another advocate was booked by the CBI for allegedly accepting a bribe in the name of a judicial officer, reinforcing the need for a thorough investigation in the present matter.

Final Decision and Its Implications

Concluding that the matter required a deep and impartial probe, the High Court disposed of the writ petition and referred the entire case to the CBI. The agency was directed to take immediate cognizance of the complaints from both sides, conduct a diligent investigation, and submit a detailed report.

This judgment serves as a stark reminder that the courts will not tolerate actions that tarnish the image of the judiciary. What began as a lawyer's plea for safety has now placed his own professional conduct under the scanner of the country's premier investigating agency, with significant implications for the advocate and the broader legal community.