Bar Council of India Intervenes in Punjab and Haryana High Court Bench Hunting Scandal

The Bar Council of India (BCI) has taken a decisive step in the ongoing controversy surrounding allegations of "bench hunting" at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, summoning the entire case record from the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana on August 14, 2025.

The BCI’s intervention follows notices issued to 16 lawyers, including senior advocates Rakesh Nehra and Puneet Bali, in connection with a high-profile corruption case involving real estate developer Roop Bansal (CRM-M-19843-2025, Roop Bansal vs State of Haryana).

The BCI scheduled a hearing for August 18, 2025, at 3:30 PM to review the matter, prompted by revision and stay petitions filed by advocates, including Gagandeep Singh.

The controversy erupted when the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana’s Privilege Committee, chaired by Raj Kumar Chauhan, initiated a suo motu inquiry on August 7, 2025, following media reports and observations by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu. The Chief Justice hinted at attempts to manipulate bench allocations in the High Court to secure favorable outcomes in the Bansal case. The practice of "bench hunting," as described by the committee, involves strategically seeking specific judges to influence judicial decisions, a serious breach of legal ethics that threatens the judiciary’s integrity.

The Privilege Committee issued notices to the 16 advocates, directing them to appear on August 16, 2025, at 3 PM to respond to the allegations.

Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi, though not formally summoned, were also summoned to provide clarity for a comprehensive adjudication as they were involved in the proceedings.

The Privilege Committee, in its notice, condemned bench hunting as akin to “rotten apples” that could undermine the legal profession’s credibility. 

According to the notice, the committee had found “prima facie” material pointing to an attempt to manipulate the bench assignment process of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a “tactful, systematic and organised manner.” The alleged conduct, it said, amounted to "an invasion of the temple of justice", reminiscent of historical discretion like invasion of Somnath temple in the 11th century.

The lawyers named in the notice included senior advocates Rakesh Nehra and Puneet Bali, and advocates J.K. Singla, Sidharth Bhardwaj, Aditya Aggarwal, Gagandeep Singh, Anmol Chandan, Baljeet Beniwal, Harsh Sharma, Sauhard Singh, Rupender Singh, Ankit Yadav, Ashim Singla, Aakash Sharma, Bindu, and A.P.S. Shergil. All had been directed to appear before the Privilege Committee on August 16 at 3 p.m., either personally or through counsel, and submit written replies.

The notice singled out J.K. Singla as having played a “key role” in the alleged orchestration but emphasised that such a “well-planned and strategised” effort could not have been executed by one person alone. “There are ingenious minds behind the curtains,” the committee observed, indicating that it believed multiple individuals coordinated the alleged actions.

The BCI’s decision to summon the case record came after some advocates challenged the Punjab and Haryana Bar Council’s notices. Despite the petitions, no stay was granted on the August 7 orders, allowing the Privilege Committee to proceed with its August 16 hearing, as reported by the Times of India.

Bench hunting, though not defined under statute, is understood as the practice of attempting to secure a particular judge or avoid another, thereby influencing the outcome of a case before it is even heard.