Punjab and Haryana High Court slaps Rs 10,000 fine on man who accused judge of ‘coercion’
The Punjab and Haryana High Court was hearing a plea filed by a litigant claiming that his fundamental rights were violated during the recording of cross-examination in his civil case.
The petitioner moved the court seeking a direction to take action against four advocates and a judicial officer who allegedly violated his fundamental rights during a cross-examination. (AI-generated image) Punjab and Haryana High Court news: The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently dismissed a man’s petition seeking disciplinary action against a judicial officer and four advocates over the manner in which cross-examination was recorded in a pending civil suit, observing that the plea appeared to be an “attempt to vilify” a judicial officer.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor imposed costs of Rs 10,000 on the petitioner and directed that the amount be deposited with the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.
“In view of the above, it is obvious that this is an attempt towards vilification of the judicial officer which needs to be dealt with heavy hands. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed with costs of Rs 10,000/- to be deposited with the Poor Patient Welfare Fund, PGIMER, Chandigarh, within a period of seven days,” the order read.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor held that the petition lacked merit.
The bench was hearing the plea filed by one Ishwar Singh, who claimed that accused persons, including four advocates and a judicial officer, violated his fundamental rights during the recording of cross-examination in his civil case.
‘No objection raised by counsel’
- The court noted the petitioner’s grievance in his civil case was to take disciplinary action against a few individuals for gross abuse of the process of law, coercion and violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights during the recording of cross-examination.
- However, when the bench drew the petitioner’s attention to an order passed in the civil suit on November 20, 2025, his counsel did not dispute that no objection had been raised at the relevant time regarding the contents of the cross-examination.
- Taking note of this fact, the court held that the petition lacked merit and appeared to be an attempt to malign the judicial officer concerned rather than a genuine grievance regarding the recording of evidence.
‘Gross abuse of process’
- Singh filed this petition seeking direction to the authorities to take appropriate legal and disciplinary action against four advocates and a judicial officer for gross abuse of process of law, coercion, and violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights during the recording of cross-examination.
- He also sought directions to the authority to re-record the cross-examination of his witness and one more witness, which, according to him, was recorded in violation of fundamental rights.
- He also added that further proceedings in his matter should be stayed during the pendency of the present petition.
Arguments
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Anju Bansal sought directions for disciplinary action against the parties, re-recording of the cross-examination of witnesses, and a stay of further proceedings in the civil suit.
The state was represented by additional advocate general Neeraj Gupta.
Client lodged FIR against GST lawyer
In another unrelated case, the Allahabad High Court quashed a criminal case initiated against an advocate for acts performed in his professional capacity, observing that if an advocate is to be held in conspiracy with his client for a professional act, like preferring an appeal, it would be the end of the very existence of the Bar and the right of an advocate to practise.
Justices J J Munir and Tarun Saxena were dealing with a plea filed by an advocate seeking quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) and related proceedings concerning a criminal charge filed against him for action taken in his “professional capacity” while representing a client in a GST matter.
The high court, in its May 21 order, said, “An Advocate, by his profession, is authorised to defend men charged with murders, rape, terror offences, and it is his/her duty to defend them. If, for doing a professional act, like preferring an appeal, an advocate is to be held in conspiracy with his client, it would be the end of the very existence of the Bar and the right of an advocate to practice under the Advocates Act.”
It was further added that an advocate has to work fearlessly and discharge his professional duties, just as an officer of the state and, therefore, is entitled to discharge his duties.
Share
