THE PRIVILEGE COMMITTEE of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, has issued notices to 16 advocates, including two senior advocates - Puneet Bali and Rakesh Nehra - in connection with allegations of bench hunting and forum shopping.
The committee has also sought comments from senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi to fairly and comprehensively adjudicate the matter. While comments have been sought from Singhvi and Rohatgi, notice has not been issued to them.
The committee is of the prima facie view that there appears to be foul play on the part of certain advocates who appeared for Roop Bansal, a prominent real estate builder.
“It appears these advocates may have manipulated procedural rules for convenience and gain,” the Privilege Committee stated in its order.
The committee has asked the lawyers to appear before it on August 16.
On May 23, Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu withdrew a corruption case involving the real estate firm 'M3M Group' from Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, even though he had reserved the order.
On May 23, Punjab and Haryana Chief Justice Sheel Nagu withdrew a corruption case involving the real estate firm M3M Group from Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, even though he had reserved the order.
The Chief Justice did so following the receipt of “oral and written complaints” to withdraw the matter from Justice Sindhu.
The Leaflet previously reported that the role of advocate JK Singla, a key reason the case was landed before Justice Sindhu, raised many unanswered questions.
Singla, who subsequently did not make a single appearance in the matter, was possibly included on paper only to ensure that a different judge, Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, recused herself from the case. His absence from the case raised serious concerns.
When the matter was listed before Chief Justice Nagu, the legal team of Roop Bansal sought an adjournment.
The Chief Justice hinted at “bench shopping.”
At one point, Chief Justice Nagu directed the petitioner’s team to summon Advocate JK Singla, who had earlier filed a fresh petition in the case.
“Where is Mr. JK Singla? We will hear him only. Please ask him to come and argue the matter. Call Mr. JK Singla, whose power of attorney was filed just to get the case out of a particular bench. This is the kind of professional ethics you are showing… You are encouraging people to make no effort… You are virtually destroying the Bar,” Chief Justice Nagu observed.
The Leaflet previously reported that in mid-2023, Roop Bansal, a promoter of the M3M Group, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case.
The name of now-suspended Haryana Judicial Services officer Sudhir Parmar, then posted as a CBI Special Judge in Panchkula, also surfaced during the investigation for allegedly favoring Roop Bansal and his kin—owners of M3M—as well as Lalit Goyal, owner of another prominent real estate firm, IREO Group.
Internal High Court documents reviewed by The Leaflet sources suggested that bench hunting, including by fielding lawyers whose appearance before particular judges known for their integrity and no-nonsense approach forced the judges to recuse themselves, was a frequently abused tactic by the accused.
This tactic was allegedly employed in this instance as well, but a written complaint made Chief Justice Nagu aware of the accused’s tactics.
Sources claimed that a group of lawyers, including some senior advocates, also misused the process to secure relief for their wealthy clients.
The complaint filed with the Chief Justice strongly suggests that the matter was listed before Justice Sindhu through a carefully planned and executed strategy, centered on ensuring the case was not decided by the bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul.
According to the then prevailing roster of the High Court, effective from March 3, all Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, cases involving FIRs or complaints from the state of Haryana, and any connected matters, were to be listed before the bench of Justice N.S. Shekhawat.
However, sources indicated that the same petitioner had previously filed a similar quashing petition, which was listed before Justice Shekhawat. On January 14, Justice Shekhawat ordered, “Let this matter be placed before some other Honorable Bench after soliciting appropriate orders from Honorable the Chief Justice.”
On February 13, the case was listed before the bench of Justice Nehru Kaul.
Then, the case took a strange turn. The petitioner’s lawyer sought the court’s permission to “withdraw the present petition, with liberty to file afresh with better particulars.”
Among the four lawyers mentioned in the order, advocate JK Singla, now at the center of the controversy, was not named.
Among the four lawyers mentioned in the order, Advocate JK Singla, now at the center of the controversy, was not named.
The petitioner’s case was argued by senior advocate Randeep Singh Rai, assisted by advocates Kunal Dawar, Rubina Virmani, and Arjun Singh Rai.
Bansal then filed a fresh petition with the same plea through advocates JK Singla and others. Notably, cases filed by Singla and the other lawyers for Bansal were not listed before certain judges, including Justice Nehru Kaul.
On April 19, following an order from the Chief Justice, who was unaware of the underlying strategy, the matter was assigned to the bench of Justice Sindhu. At the first hearing, when no one appeared for the petitioner, including Singla, the judge, on April 23, postponed the matter to the next day “purely in the interest of justice.”
On April 24, the court issued a notice of motion, with the judge directing that the necessary actions—filing a response on behalf of the respondents—be completed “on or before the next date.” The matter was ordered to be listed on April 29 under the “urgent list.”
While senior advocate Puneet Bali appeared for the petitioner along with advocates Anmol Chandan, Siddharth Bhardwaj, and Gagandeep Singh, advocate Singla, the reason the matter was assigned to Justice Sindhu, was conspicuously absent.
On April 29, the respondents complied with the previous order by producing the original record, which was “perused and returned to learned State counsel.” The judge ordered that the same be brought on the next date of hearing. After the counsel for the State of Haryana sought time to file a written response, the matter was adjourned to May 2 under the urgent list. Unsurprisingly, advocate Singla was absent from the court on this date as well.
On May 2, after hearing the matter, Justice Sindhu reserved the main case while disposing of the miscellaneous application. Once again, advocate Singla was not named among the advocates appearing in the case. The petitioner’s case was argued by senior advocates Puneet Bali and Rakesh Nehra. However, before the judgment could be pronounced, the written complaint reached Chief Justice Nagu, who ordered the case withdrawn from Justice Sindhu to be heard by himself.