The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a woman advocate seeking protection of her life and personal liberty against alleged harassment by a senior Chandigarh Police officer, holding that her accusations against the officer and a former High Court Bar Association secretary lacked any substantiated basis.
Justice Vikram Aggarwal, in an order dated October 6, also criticised the language used in the petition, observing that an advocate must exercise restraint and maintain professional discipline while making allegations before a court.
The Court found the petition devoid of merit and held that invoking Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty, cannot become a means of misusing judicial proceedings.
Court Criticises Allegations and Language Used in Petition
While examining the petition, the High Court expressed strong disapproval of the manner in which the advocate had framed her accusations against the police officer and the former bar association office-bearer.
Justice Aggarwal observed that the language employed in the pleadings fell short of the discipline and decorum expected in judicial proceedings. The Court emphasised that the petitioner, being a practising advocate, was expected to exercise greater caution while placing allegations on record.
It further observed that grievances against public officials or authorities must be presented within appropriate limits, irrespective of the nature of the allegations.
The Court similarly disapproved of the allegations made against the former secretary of the High Court Bar Association and strongly deprecated the language used in that regard.
Advocate Alleged Harassment, Blackmail and Misuse of Criminal Cases
The petitioner had approached the High Court alleging that a senior woman officer of Chandigarh Police was deliberately targeting her and attempting to damage her professional reputation.
According to the advocate, two FIRs had been registered against her in 2025, which she alleged were being used by the police officer to intimidate and blackmail her.
She further claimed that the officer was pursuing a personal campaign against her without properly verifying the facts and circumstances of the matters involved.
The advocate also referred to several complaints she claimed to have submitted since 2023 concerning blackmail, extortion, attempted murder and social media trolling.
She alleged that instead of initiating appropriate legal action on those complaints, the officer had subjected her to further harassment and had interfered with pending judicial proceedings.
The petition also contained allegations concerning a dispute over documents relating to her membership of the High Court Bar Association.
The advocate claimed that individuals involved in the alleged forgery had influenced the police officer, who subsequently turned other officers and her professional colleagues against her.
She attributed restrictions on her entry into the High Court, registration of criminal cases against her and the alleged illegal detention and assault of her associate to these actions.
Article 21 Cannot Be Invoked to Abuse Judicial Process
After considering the allegations, the High Court concluded that the petitioner had failed to establish a basis for the relief sought.
The Court found the accusations against the senior police officer and the former bar association secretary unsubstantiated and baseless.
It emphasised that the constitutional guarantee of life and personal liberty cannot be invoked to justify allegations that lack substantiation or the misuse of court proceedings.
Rejecting the petition, Justice Aggarwal reiterated that advocates have a responsibility to maintain discipline and decorum in their pleadings, particularly when making accusations against individuals holding public or professional positions.
