Asking lawyers not to appear against Bar body members unethical: High court

The Punjab and Haryana high court has taken a serious note of a resolution passed by the Bar Association, Phul, in Bathinda district, asking members not to file or appear in cases against each other as well as parents and children of Bar body members.

“Definitely, it is against the ethics of the advocacy to pass such a resolution,” the high court bench of justice Archana Puri observed while ordering transfer of 20 odd cases between two parties from Bathinda to Patiala district.

The court acted on the 20 odd petitions from one Manjit Singh, who had approached the high court seeking transfer of cases between him and one Satya Devi, mother of a Bar body member, with whom he had property-related disputes.

The plea mentioned that her son Vikas Garg became an advocate and member of the Bar Association, Phul, and allegedly embroiled him in many cases. “In January 2023, the Bar Association, Phul passed a resolution vide which it was prohibited for any member to appear in any case in which the opposite party is also the member. Due to this reason, the advocate representing the applicants withdrew his power of attorney from various cases,” the petitioner told the court. The matter came to light in the same year (2023) and the high court issued notice to the office-bearers of the Bar body, seeking to know how the resolution was passed.

In response to the plea, the woman (Satya Devi) had submitted that Singh was trying to grab her property. “Singh’s son is a PCS officer. He is trying to manipulate records with his help,” she claimed.

None of the Bar body members appeared. One Devinder Singh Khurrana, who appeared on behalf of the then president, said the resolution had been withdrawn. “The question arises as to why such kind of resolution was passed. There is no explanation, as such, coming forth from any of the office-bearers,” the bench added.

During the proceedings, it came to light that the Bar body also wrote a letter to the Bathinda SSP in which they showed “solidarity” with their colleague and sought adjudication from the police authorities for the cancellation of the FIR and for registration of a case against Singh, which it said was a “surprising” move from the Bar body. “This in itself smells of Bar being hostile towards the complainant side and standing as a rock with their Bar member. It is not so required for the dispensation of justice. Assurance of fair trial is the first imperative of dispensation of justice,” the bench recorded.

The court maintained that even as it is being argued that the false cases have been registered against Vikas Garg and his family members, but falsity or genuineness of the litigation shall be adjudicated by the courts concerned, it added.

It becomes quite obvious that Singh and his family may not be able to pursue/defend their cases in the courts at Phul with the legal assistance rendered by the advocates of the local Bar, it said ordering transfer of trial outside Bathinda.