State bar council issues notices to 16 lawyers over alleged bench hunting

CHANDIGARH: The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana (BCPH) has issued notices to 16 lawyers, including two senior advocates, in connection with allegations of “bench hunting” in a high-profile case involving real estate developer Roop Bansal.

The council issued the notice following a suo motu inquiry initiated by the Privilege Committee after media reports and court observations hinted at attempts to manipulate the bench allocation process of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The Privilege Committee, chaired by Raj Kumar Chauhan, convened on August 7 to examine records in CRM-M-19843-2025 (Roop Bansal vs State of Haryana), along with related high court orders and news reports. The committee observed that the allegations, if proven, amount to a grave attack on the dignity and ethics of the legal profession.

“Any attempt to subvert the Temple of Justice, motivated by greed or manipulation, must be addressed with utmost seriousness,” the order stated, invoking historical and moral analogies from the Mahabharata and quotes from figures like Mahatma Gandhi, B.R. Ambedkar, Lord Denning, and Justice Brandeis. The order was released on Friday late evening.

The lawyers who have been asked to file a response to the issue are 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, APS Shergil, Senior Advocate Rakesh Nehra, and Senior Advocate Puneet Bali.

All are alleged to have appeared or acted on behalf of Roop Bansal in the matter. The committee noted that records prima facie suggest Advocate J K Singla may have played a “key role” in orchestrating the strategy, but stressed that such actions were likely carried out “in an organised manner” with involvement from other “ingenious minds” yet to be identified.

The order also called for responses from prominent Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi to ensure a comprehensive adjudication.

The lawyers have been asked to appear before the Privilege Committee on August 16 at 3 pm, either in person or through counsel, and to submit written replies.

The committee likened the alleged practice of bench hunting—seeking a particular bench perceived to be favourable—to “rotten apples in the basket” and stressed the need to remove them before the entire profession’s integrity is compromised. It also appealed for information or complaints from advocates or affected persons, to be sent via the committee’s email or official WhatsApp number.

“The legal profession is not merely a career—it is a calling that demands unshakable integrity, moral courage, and devotion to the cause of justice,” the order concluded, warning that ethical breaches by even a few can corrode public faith in the entire system.

Importantly, the matter came into the limelight after a complaint was received by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the matter was de-listed from the bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sandhu, who reserved its verdict after hearing the matter.

The Chief Justice, in its order, hinted at bench hunting by the lawyers in this matter. Prior to referring the matter to Justice Sandhu, several benches recused themselves from hearing.

Interestingly, even after taking the matter from Justice Sandhu, several other judges of the HC recused themselves from hearing this case.