Prima facie contempt: High Court on Bar Association chief’s strike call

Chandigarh, July 4

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that Bar Association president Vikas Malik’s “unsuccessful attempt” to call a general house meeting for suspension of work, coupled with his alleged action of assaulting an advocate, amounted to interference in the administration of justice.

The Bench of Acting Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Bahl said a case of criminal contempt was, prima facie, made out under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The provision makes it clear that “anybody who prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding and obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner would become liable”.

Referring to complaints of sexual harassment of advocates and Bar Association employees received against Malik, the Bench directed the Chief Justice’s office to supply copies to the Bar Council to look into the allegations and proceed accordingly.

The Judges observed: “Being the first Bench, it is the bounden duty of this court to protect the prestige of this institution, which apparently has been lowered by respondent-Malik, who still has not come forward to put in appearance even today, though well aware that the proceedings are pending before this Court.”

The Bench added it was open to the Bar Council to issue fresh notice to the persons concerned regarding the allegations contained in the complaints and pass interim orders to ensure the sanctity and respect of the institution, in case Malik did not cooperate. “It is also open to the respondent to furnish his apology to redeem his conduct,” the Judges observed.

The directions came on a petition filed against Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana through its Chairman and other respondents by advocate Anjali Kukar and other petitioners through senior counsel GS Bal and other advocates.

The Bench observed it was informed that “when summons were sought to be served upon respondent-Malik, an incident took place which led to lodging of an FIR dated July 1, on the statement of Ranjeet Singh, an advocate, who was one of the petitioners in the present petition, as he was assaulted by the respondent and his associates in the office of the Bar Association located on the premises of the high court”.

The Bench added it had gone through the FIR and was of the opinion the matter was required to be supervised by UT Senior Superintendent of Police “as certain other offences would arise from the plain reading of the FIR which have not been mentioned”.

The Bench added it was also informed that the injured victim/complainant was undergoing treatment at the PGI, Chandigarh. As such, his medico legal report “be also taken into consideration and appropriate action be taken”. “We have been informed that a resolution was sought to be passed at the instance of respondent-Malik to call a strike till the cancellation of the FIR. Copy of the WhatsApp message in this regard, circulated by the respondent is placed on record,” the Bench observed.

What Bench observed

We have been informed that a resolution was sought to be passed at the instance of respondent-Malik to call a strike till the cancellation of the FIR. Copy of the WhatsApp message in this regard, circulated by the respondent, is placed on record. — High Court Bench