Chief Justice Nagu flags ‘dangerous trend’ of filing vakalatnamas to shift cases from 'particular Benches'

Expressing serious concern over alleged tactics to secure favourable Benches, Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu on Thursday termed the emerging “trend” of advocates filing powers of attorney merely to have matters transferred away from specific judges as “very dangerous.”

“This is a very dangerous trend that you all are developing. You file a power, earn money, and sit down in your home and enjoy life. You don’t want to work,” Chief Justice Nagu observed during a hearing, cautioning that such practices threatened the integrity of court processes and the Bar itself.

Chief Justice Nagu’s observations came while dealing with a petition filed by M3M group director Roop Bansal. The case was originally filed sometime in January and listed for the first time before the Judge “holding the roster of matters pertaining to Prevention of Corruption Act qua the State of Haryana.”

The Judge recused himself on January 14, following which the matter was listed before another Bench in accordance with the standing instructions in the “prevailing roster.” The case came up for hearing on February 13 before the other Bench, but was dismissed as withdrawn following a request by the petitioner’s counsel.

The case in hand was filed on April 7 by the petitioner, who was represented by an advocate whose cases were not listed before the other Bench. Consequently, the case was placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side, who nominated the matter to the senior-most Judge “among the criminal single Benches.” It was from this Bench that the case was withdrawn by the Chief Justice, acting on “oral and written complaints.”

After recusing himself from hearing the matter, as he had dealt with it on the administrative side, Chief Justice Nagu asked the senior advocate representing the petitioner whether he had counseled the person “who had filed a power of attorney just to bring that case out of a particular Bench.”

The Chief Justice warned that such a practice, unless discouraged, could “develop a very dangerous trend that a person without any effort files a power and starts earning money…. If it’s done only to get the case out of a particular Bench, that is immoral.”

Turning to the advocate concerned, Chief Justice Nagu pressed: “There are standing instructions from certain judges about your cases not being listed in their book. How many such benches are there?” The counsel, in response, maintained the instructions were issued regarding just one Bench.

Referring to the case in hand, the counsel said he accepted the brief in good faith as part of his routine criminal practice. “Because before accepting the brief in good faith, I consulted the matter… On merit, I consider that this is a good case. But what they had in their mind, I don’t know,” he submitted.

Nonetheless, Chief Justice Nagu expressed dismay at the perceived erosion of professional standards in the Bar. “It is very unfortunate. The Bar will go down,” the court remarked, stressing that it was the responsibility of senior counsel to guide rather than merely appear.