HC takes suo motu notice of assault on advocate by Haryana police in Nayagaon

The division bench of Chief Justice Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry noted that the incident appeared to raise issues of public interest concerning the safety and dignity of advocates practising before the court. Dictating the order in open court, Chief Justice Nagu recorded that the incident allegedly took place around 3 pm on November 30 at SCF-51, Tribune Colony, Kansal, in Mohali district, and that a written complaint had been submitted by the victim advocate to the Nayagaon police station the same day.

“The beginning of the complaint itself shows that prima facie cognisable offences are made out. It is not understandable why an FIR has not been registered,” the Chief Justice observed, adding that the advocate had also emailed a complaint to the senior superintendent of police on December 7.

The court directed the state of Punjab to explain the delay and ordered that an affidavit be filed by the Director General of Police (DGP), Punjab, by Wednesday afternoon.

Earlier, Bar Association president S S Narula and other office-bearers informed the bench about a resolution passed by the general house of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association. Narula said the general house had resolved to write to the Punjab DGP, flagging repeated complaints against the Nayagaon police station where, according to the Bar, several complaints by advocates disclosing cognisable offences had not been acted upon.

Narula told the court that nearly 400 lawyers lived in and around the Nayagaon area and that multiple complaints involving advocates had remained pending. These included allegations of a lawyer being assaulted at his residence, another advocate’s water supply being disconnected, and threats and assaults against lawyers, including incidents outside court premises. “If an advocate approaches the police, the matter is delayed week after week. But if the police want to act against an advocate, it is done immediately,” he submitted.

Senior members of the Bar also alleged that Haryana Police personnel had crossed into Punjab without informing the local police, entered the advocate’s Nayagaon house in plainclothes, assaulted him, and would have forcibly taken him away had locals not intervened. Later, they attempted to justify their presence as a “mistake” regarding jurisdiction. This, they alleged, amounted to trespass and an attempt to cover up illegal action by both the Punjab and Haryana police.

The Bar leaders said representations had been made to senior police officers and that even petitions filed earlier by advocates were pending without effective relief. They urged the court to consider evolving a mechanism or designating a special bench to urgently hear grievances of advocates involving personal liberty and police action.

Referring to settled law under Section 154 of the CrPC and Supreme Court precedents, Chief Justice Nagu observed that once a complaint disclosed a cognisable offence, the police were duty-bound to register an FIR. If they failed to do so, the aggrieved party had a clear legal remedy before the court. “If the police do not act within one day, come to us. Why did you not come to the court?” the Chief Justice asked.

“You are intellectuals,” he reiterated, adding, “come to the court… you don’t have to get into a brawl with the police.”

The bench expressed concern over the impact of the work abstention on litigants, noting that many had travelled from far-off places seeking bail, interim protection and urgent relief. “If someone else does not do his duty, does that mean you will also not do your duty?” he asked.

The Bar, however, maintained that the decision to abstain from work had been taken by the general house and was not in the hands of the executive. Narula said the resolution was that work would not resume till an FIR was registered in the Nayagaon incident, though the Bar had consciously refrained from calling for a strike in the district courts so that the lower judiciary continued to function.

The court said it was seized of the matter and urged the Bar to resume work, while making it clear that registration of an FIR was mandatory if cognisable offences were disclosed and investigation could follow thereafter. The case will now be taken up at 2 pm on Wednesday.