Punjab & Haryana High Court restrains Bar body from moving against advocate

Appearing for the Bar Association, senior advocate Rupinder Khosla, joined by secretary Gagandeep Jammu, mounted a passionate defence. “No, it is actually not in public interest, for the simple reason that these facilities are being provided by the bar association, not by the UT administration. We will not be treating it as public interest,” Khosla told the Bench.

Khosla also urged the court to place on record his lack of trust in both the High Court’s administrative side and the UT administration: “You can place it on record, my lords. I’ve been here for the last 37 years. Neither the High Court administration nor the UT administration has done anything for lawyers or litigants. Take the cafeteria — it cannot house more than 80 people. What has the High Court administration done? Nothing. What has the UT done? Nothing. As far as the parking lot is concerned, something is being done about the kacha parking only now, when your lordship has come.”
The PIL, registered in February 2023, seeks the removal of illegal vendors, unauthorised parking fee collections, and structures.

Yadav told the court that after an order was passed in the PIL on July 11 this year, the association revived disciplinary proceedings against him, which was first initiated in 2023, and a fresh hearing was listed for September 17. He alleged that the process was designed to cancel his Bar membership and deter him from pursuing the PIL, despite him being a member since 1999 with no prior complaints.

The Bar Association’s move stems from a July 2023 resolution by its executive committee, which described Yadav’s PIL as “misconduct” harmful to the association’s financial health and welfare, and referred it to a disciplinary panel.

During the Tuesday hearing, the bench pressed the Bar’s counsel on the validity of that move. “Where is the misconduct? Is misconduct defined in your bylaws?” Chief Justice Nagu asked. “This virtually amounts to interference in the process… How can you stop somebody from raising a public cause, which apparently appears to be public?”

The bench, making its position clear, told the Bar: “You may not be treating it as public interest… Look, we treat it as public interest.” It then restrained the association from taking any coercive steps against Yadav until the matter is heard further on September 19.