Bar Divided: Punjab & Haryana Council Probes Senior Designations Amid Favoritism Claims

CHANDIGARH – A profound schism has emerged within the legal fraternity of Punjab and Haryana following the designation of 76 lawyers as Senior Advocates by the High Court on October 20. The celebratory mood was short-lived as the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, the statutory body overseeing advocates in the region, has launched a formal inquiry into the selection process, citing serious complaints of "nepotism and favouritism." This move places it in direct opposition to the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, which has effusively praised the appointments as a "milestone."

The controversy centers on an unusually large cohort of appointments and the methodology employed by the High Court. While the Bar Association lauded the designations for recognizing "merit, talent, and professional excellence," the Bar Council has responded to a groundswell of concern from practitioners. In an emergent meeting, the Council resolved to seek detailed information from the High Court, effectively challenging the transparency and fairness of the entire exercise.

This institutional clash not only casts a shadow over the newly designated seniors but also raises fundamental questions about procedural integrity, judicial administration, and the criteria for conferring one of the legal profession's most coveted honors.

The Contention: A Tale of Two Bars

The starkly contrasting reactions from the two preeminent legal bodies underscore the depth of the division.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, a voluntary body representing lawyers practicing at the High Court, was quick to express its "gratitude" to Chief Justice Sheel Nagu. In a letter, its secretary, Gagandeep Jammu, described the "long-awaited decision" as a reflection of the court's commitment to excellence and praised the "transparent and merit-based assessment" that he claimed enhanced the fraternity's confidence in the institutional process.

However, the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, a more powerful entity established under the Advocates Act, 1961, with regulatory and disciplinary authority over all lawyers in Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh, painted a vastly different picture. Following an extraordinary meeting attended by 22 of its members, the Council noted it had received numerous complaints from advocates practicing in both the High Court and subordinate courts. The allegations were direct and damaging, claiming that "several meritorious candidates have been left out while many non-deserving candidates have been designated as Senior Advocates."

This divergence is legally significant. The Bar Council's authority is statutory, and under Section 6(d) of the Advocates Act, it is duty-bound to "safeguard the rights, privileges and interests of advocates." Its decision to investigate is not merely a statement of opinion but the initiation of a formal regulatory process.

The Council's Formal Inquiry: Seeking Clarity on Procedure

Acting on its mandate, the Bar Council has submitted a formal letter to the Chief Justice, seeking clarification on seven critical points that go to the heart of the controversy:

• Selection Procedure: A detailed account of the specific procedure adopted for the selection and designation.
• Applicable Rules: Clarification on whether the process adhered to old or new rules, and crucially, if it was in consonance with the Supreme Court's judgment in the Indira Jaising case.
• Evaluation Criteria: Disclosure of marks awarded to individual candidates, along with the complete data and criteria used for evaluation.
• Public Disclosure: Confirmation on whether marks were published on the High Court's website before the Full Court made its final decision.
• Practice History: Information on whether candidates who have not actively filed or appeared in cases in recent years were considered for designation.
• Circulation of Notification: Verification that the invitation for applications was adequately circulated among District and Sub-Divisional Bar Associations to ensure a wide and inclusive pool of applicants.
• Reservation Criteria: Details on any specific criteria adopted for candidates from Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities and for women.

These questions highlight a deep-seated concern about the lack of transparency in the process. The process reportedly involved a committee clearing 64 of the 210 applicants, all of whom were approved by the Full Court. Subsequently, the Full Court independently voted on and cleared an additional 12 applicants, bringing the total to 76. The Council's queries suggest that the basis for both the committee's recommendations and the Full Court's additions is unclear to the wider bar.

Legal Backdrop: The Shadow of Supreme Court Guidelines

The controversy is further complicated by recent developments at the Supreme Court regarding the designation process. In May of this year, a Supreme Court bench reviewing the framework established in its 2017 Indira Jaising judgment did away with the mandatory points-based system. The Court observed that after years of application, the system was not "rationally or objectively possible" for assessing the calibre of an advocate.

The apex court directed all High Courts to amend their designation rules within four months to align with the new, more flexible guidelines. This raises a pivotal question for the Punjab & Haryana High Court: which set of rules governed this round of designations? Were the now-defunct points-based rules from Indira Jaising used? Were new rules framed and followed in line with the May 2024 directive? Or was an ad-hoc procedure adopted in the interim? The Bar Council's pointed query on this matter suggests that the procedural foundation of the entire selection is in doubt.

Implications for the Legal Profession

The outcome of this standoff will have far-reaching consequences. For the 76 newly designated Senior Advocates, the controversy taints a career-defining achievement, subjecting their credentials to unwelcome scrutiny. For the wider legal community, it erodes trust in the fairness of a system meant to elevate advocates based on merit, standing, and integrity.

If the Bar Council's investigation substantiates the allegations of procedural irregularities or favouritism, it could lead to calls for a review of the designations and a complete overhaul of the process at the High Court. It also places the High Court's administration in a difficult position, as a refusal to provide the requested information could be perceived as a lack of transparency, while the information itself could potentially validate the Council's concerns.

The Bar Council is set to reconvene on October 31 to discuss the issue further, by which time it hopes to have a response from the High Court. The legal fraternity across the region will be watching closely as this chapter unfolds, a chapter that will test the resilience of institutional integrity and the balance of power between the judiciary and the Bar.