ED Accuses Businessman of “Bench Hunting”; Cites Abuse of Judicial Process in High Court

CHANDIGARH – The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has strongly opposed a withdrawal application filed by businessman Roop Bansal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, asserting that his repeated filing and withdrawal of petitions constitutes a deliberate strategy of "bench hunting" and a flagrant abuse of the judicial process.

In a detailed reply submitted to Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, the ED argued that Bansal's actions are a calculated attempt to manipulate the court's roster and secure a hearing before a preferred bench. Bansal is facing serious charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, in connection with an FIR alleging a conspiracy to bribe a Trial Court judge. The petition in question seeks the quashing of this very FIR.

The ED, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Lokesh Narang, stated, "repetitive conduct of the petitioner to file and withdraw the quashing petitions tantamount to forum shopping/ bench hunting which cannot be permitted." The agency emphasized the significant judicial resources already expended on the matter, arguing that allowing the withdrawal would set a dangerous precedent. "Substantial judicial time has been spent on the adjudication of the present case and the petitioner should not be allowed to abuse the process of law merely because he/she can afford to," the ED's reply contends.

A Contentious Procedural History

The case has been marked by a series of procedural maneuvers that have drawn scrutiny from both the Bench and the Bar. This is the second time Bansal has attempted to withdraw a petition aimed at quashing the same FIR.

• First Petition (Withdrawn): Bansal’s initial plea was withdrawn in February 2023, with the stated intention of refiling it "with better particulars."
• Second Petition (Filed and Withdrawal Sought): A fresh petition was subsequently filed in April. However, Bansal later moved an application to withdraw this second petition as well.

This second attempt at withdrawal triggered the current controversy. The application was listed before two different judges before being placed before the Chief Justice due to the mounting allegations of bench hunting. Following the Chief Justice's recusal, the case was assigned to Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul. After a brief period before Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, who also recused himself, the matter was ultimately returned to Justice Kaul's bench for adjudication.

The ED's filing directly addresses this pattern, asserting that such conduct is a textbook example of forum shopping. "The conduct of the petitioner amounts to forum shopping. Avoiding a bench is as much forum shopping as attempting to choose a bench," the agency stated, underscoring that the practice is not limited to seeking out a favorable judge but also includes actively avoiding a specific one.

Legal Precedent and Broader Implications

To bolster its arguments, the ED placed significant reliance on the Supreme Court's observations in Sanjiv Kumar Rajendrabhai Bhatt vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. [SLP(Crl) No. 9445 of 2022] . In that case, the apex court had taken a stern view of similar tactics, stating, "we are of the opinion that the request of recusal is nothing but an attempt to indulge in Forum Shopping and Bench Hunting and to avoid the Bench with mala fide intention."

By invoking this precedent, the ED is urging the High Court to recognize Bansal’s actions as a mala fide attempt to undermine the administration of justice. The agency has prayed for the dismissal of the withdrawal application, describing the attempt as "nothing but an abuse of process of law" at this advanced stage.

Bar Council Takes Cognizance

The case's notoriety has extended beyond the courtroom, prompting the State Bar Council to take suo motu cognizance of the alleged unethical practices. In a significant development, the Bar Council has summoned sixteen advocates for an inquiry into their potential involvement in the matter. This move followed oral observations from the High Court's Chief Justice, who had remarked that the case appeared to have been filed merely to "get the case out of a particular bench."

The Bar Council's intervention signals a growing concern within the legal fraternity about the erosion of ethical standards and the potential for disciplinary action against lawyers found to be complicit in such strategies. The Council has since issued a broader call for complaints against any lawyers or litigants involved in bench hunting or forum shopping, indicating a move towards a systemic crackdown on such practices.

Next Steps

During the recent hearing, the counsel for Roop Bansal sought an adjournment to review the ED's detailed response. The court has granted the request, and the matter is now scheduled for further hearing on October 13. The High Court's decision on the withdrawal application will be closely watched, as it could establish a firm precedent in the region for dealing with perceived abuses of the judicial process and reinforce the judiciary's intolerance for litigation strategies that compromise its integrity.