Where is the misconduct? P&H High Court pulls up bar association for taking action against lawyer who filed PIL

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday pulled up its Bar Association for initiating disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer who filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) flagging unauthorised structures and encroachments like dhabas and kiosks at the court premises [Prithvi Raj Yadav v. Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others]..A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry restrained the High Court Bar Association (HCBA) from taking any coercive action against the petitioner, Advocate Prithvi Raj Yadav.“Where is the misconduct? This [disciplinary action] is interference in the process of justice, this PIL. This virtually amounts to interference,” Chief Justice remarked.The Court also remarked that Yadav had raised a cause which should have been raised by the HCBA.“It appears it is your cause. You should have raised it. He is trying to remove encroachments,” the Court said..Yadav’s PIL had prompted the Chandigarh administration to initiate removal of the dhabas and vendors located around the High Court. The proposed action was later challenged by the HCBA, stating that there was shortage of facilities in the High Court and such removal would affect not just lawyers but litigants also.In July 2023, the High Court stayed the action and called for suggestions from all stakeholders on how to address the issue. The High Court administration in July this year submitted that only few spaces have been rented out by it and the rest are controlled by the HCBA. The Bench then sought details from the HCBA about items essential for lawyers..Today, the Court was informed about the proceedings against Yadav. In response, Senior Advocate Rupinder Singh Khosla, representing the HCBA, submitted that they would file a reply to Yadav’s application pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings.“But I reiterate that this is not the forum for him to espouse…” Khosla added.According to HCBA, Yadav’s PIL is against its interests and also harmful for its financial health. Accordingly, it constituted a disciplinary committee of three members to proceed against him, the Court was told.However, the Court said that the HCBA cannot stop anyone from approaching it with a public cause.Khosla said that the PIL was not in public interest as the facilities that would be affected by the case were not being provided by the Chandigarh administration.“It is the Bar Association providing these facilities,” he said..CJI Nagu said that it is irrelevant that the HCBA was not treating the case as one of public interest. He further asked whether the HCBA did not have any trust in the Court.In response, Khosla said that the HCBA does not trust the High Court administration when it comes to providing facilities to lawyers.“UT administration is not there. The High Court has not done anything...I have been here for the last 37 years, the High Court on the administrative side has not done anything for lawyers or clients. I have no trust. Your lordships may record it....We (HCBA) are forced to do all these things. Let's take one example: the cafeteria cannot house more than 80 people. What has the High Court done to provide a cafeteria? Nothing! What has UT administration done? Nothing! Only now has something been done for kachha parking.”The Court then asked Khosla to respond to Yadav’s application against the HCBA decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him and listed it for hearing on September 19.Pertinently, the Court last year in Yadav's PIL restrained the HCBA from collecting any parking fee from the litigants, employees, government officials and advocates visiting the High Court..Advocate PR Yadav appeared in person.Advocates Kanwal Goyal and Sheena Dahiya appeared for the High Court.Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain with Senior Panel Counsel NK Vashisth appeared for the Union of India.Standing Counsel JS Chandail appeared for Chandigarh administration.Senior Advocate Rupinder Singh Khosla with Advocates Yogender Verma and Gagandeep Singh Jammu (HCBA Secretary) argued for HCBA.Senior Deputy Advocate General Salil Sabhlok represented the State of Punjab.Additional Advocate General Deepak Balyan appeared for the State of Haryana..[Read Order]