Punjab & Haryana Bar Council Probes 16 Lawyers Over 'Bench Hunting'

Chandigarh – In a significant move underscoring the legal profession's commitment to self-regulation and judicial integrity, the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana (BCPH) has initiated a probe into serious allegations of "bench hunting." The BCPH's privilege committee has issued notices to 16 lawyers, a group that notably includes two senior advocates from the high court and two of the nation's most eminent legal figures: senior advocate and Member of Parliament Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and former Attorney General for India, Mukul Rohatgi.

The inquiry stems from alleged attempts to manipulate judicial rostering to secure a favourable hearing in a high-stakes corruption case. The underlying matter involves a Gurugram-based real estate developer and a former special CBI court judge from Haryana, adding layers of complexity and public interest to the investigation. This action by the BCPH sends a powerful message about the intolerance for practices that threaten to undermine the fairness and impartiality of the justice delivery system.

---

The Allegations and the Underlying Case

The controversy revolves around what is known in legal parlance as "bench hunting" or "forum shopping." This practice involves litigants or their counsel employing procedural tactics to have their case heard by a specific judge or bench perceived to be more sympathetic to their arguments. Such manoeuvres, whether through repeated filings, withdrawals, or strategic delays, are widely condemned as a form of professional misconduct because they compromise the principle of random case allocation, which is fundamental to judicial impartiality.

According to the information available, the BCPH's action was triggered by concerns that certain lawyers attempted to steer the corruption-related case toward a particular bench in the High Court. The privilege committee, chaired by Raj Kumar Chauhan, was constituted on August 4 by BCPH chairman Rakesh Gupta to investigate these claims.

While the specifics of the corruption case remain the subject of a separate judicial process, its gravity provides the context for the alleged misconduct. Cases involving allegations against judicial officers and prominent business figures are inherently sensitive, and any perception of strategic manipulation can severely damage public trust in the legal system. The BCPH's decision to investigate the conduct of the lawyers involved, rather than just the merits of the case itself, highlights the Bar's role as the guardian of professional ethics.

High-Profile Advocates Under Scrutiny

The inclusion of Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi has elevated the inquiry's profile considerably. The privilege committee has specifically sought their responses, stating that their input is necessary to "fairly and comprehensively adjudicate the matter in hand." This indicates that their involvement in the case, whether direct or advisory, is considered material to the investigation.

For legal professionals, the notice to two of the most respected figures at the Supreme Court Bar is a sobering reminder that ethical standards apply universally, regardless of stature or seniority. It signals that State Bar Councils are willing to scrutinize the conduct of even the most prominent members of the profession to uphold its integrity. The outcome of their involvement will be closely watched, as it could set a precedent for how the bar addresses allegations of misconduct against its most senior members.

'Bench Hunting' as Professional Misconduct: A Legal and Ethical Analysis

"Bench hunting" is a direct assault on the foundations of the judicial system. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly deprecated the practice in various judgments. In Union of India & Ors. vs. Cipla Ltd. & Anr. (2017), the Court described forum shopping as a "disreputable practice by the litigants which has to be deprecated."

The Advocates Act, 1961, grants Bar Councils the power to take disciplinary action against advocates for professional misconduct. The Bar Council of India Rules, framed under the Act, lay down the standards of professional conduct and etiquette. Section 35 of the Advocates Act empowers State Bar Councils to reprimand, suspend, or remove an advocate from the roll for misconduct.

The core ethical principles violated by bench hunting include:

1. Duty to the Court: Lawyers have a primary duty to assist the court in the administration of justice. Engaging in tactics that manipulate the judicial roster is a dereliction of this duty.
2. Maintaining Public Confidence: The legitimacy of the judiciary rests on its perceived impartiality. Bench hunting erodes this confidence by creating an impression that justice can be bought or manipulated.
3. Fairness to the Opposing Party: The practice puts the opposing party at a disadvantage and subverts the level playing field that a court of law is supposed to provide.

The BCPH investigation, therefore, is not merely a procedural inquiry but a fundamental examination of adherence to these core tenets of the legal profession.

The Broader Implications for the Legal Profession

This investigation by the BCPH could have far-reaching consequences beyond the 16 individuals involved. It serves as a stark warning to the entire legal fraternity about the serious view that regulatory bodies take on such unethical practices.

Firstly, it may encourage other State Bar Councils to adopt a more proactive and stringent approach to allegations of bench hunting and other forms of procedural manipulation. A successful and transparent investigation in this high-profile case could embolden other regulatory bodies to act decisively.

Secondly, it could spark a much-needed conversation within the legal community about the pressures and temptations that lead to such practices. It raises questions about the "win-at-all-costs" mentality and the need for continuous ethical training and reinforcement, particularly for younger lawyers who may be influenced by the practices of their seniors.

Finally, the outcome will significantly impact the public perception of the legal profession's ability to self-regulate. A thorough and impartial inquiry resulting in appropriate action will strengthen trust. Conversely, a failure to act decisively could reinforce cynicism about the accountability of powerful legal figures.

As the privilege committee proceeds with its inquiry, the legal community will be watching with keen interest. The responses from the 16 lawyers, particularly from luminaries like Singhvi and Rohatgi, will be critical in determining the future course of this landmark case of professional accountability.