The Supreme Court on Tuesday strongly condemned the bar councils of Punjab and Haryana for engaging in what it described as “shameful acts,” “malpractices,” and “massive corruption.” The bench, consisting of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, expressed dismay at the alleged transformation of lawyers’ chambers into hubs for property dealers and corrupt activities.
During the proceedings concerning an advocate’s plea against his disqualification from contesting the Karnal Bar Association elections, the justices voiced their concern over the deteriorating standards within the legal profession in these states. Justice Kant remarked that the bar councils, especially the Haryana State Bar Council, had become a “shameful association” and warned that the court might consider forming a special investigation team to scrutinize their bank accounts and overall conduct.
The case at hand involved Advocate Sandeep Chaudhary, who challenged his electoral disqualification which he argued infringed upon his rights as an advocate. The disqualification was initially imposed due to allegations of fund misappropriation, pending an inquiry. Although the Bar Council of India had stayed his disqualification, a subsequent plea led the high court to overturn this relief, leading to his exclusion from the election, which was immediately held the following day.
The Supreme Court issued notices to the concerned bar bodies and sought the assistance of senior advocate R S Cheema, a member of the Karnal Bar Association, to recommend capable senior lawyers who could temporarily assume leadership roles within the bar body.
Senior Advocate Narender Hooda, representing Chaudhary, detailed the election irregularities, including how the returning officer declared candidates elected unopposed without conducting a proper vote, further highlighting the alleged corruption within the bar association.
Justice Kant’s remarks underscored the gravity of the situation, indicating that the judiciary had substantial concerns about the integrity of legal institutions in these regions. “These chambers of advocates have become addas (dens) of property dealers. No serious professional is sitting there,” Justice Kant observed, reflecting on the broader implications for the legal profession’s reputation.
The matter is set to be revisited on April 15, with Cheema expected to provide his recommendations for interim office bearers via virtual attendance at the next hearing.
