'Prima-Facie Contempt': Punjab & Haryana High Court On Bar Association President's Call For Strike Till Cancellation Of FIR Against Him

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the action of High Court Bar Association President Vikas Malik, to call for suspension of work till the cancellation of FIR lodged against him, constitutes prima facie contempt.

Malik, who handed over his charge to Bar Association's Vice-President today, allegedly assaulted a lawyer in the Court premises on July 01. An FIR was filed against him for criminal intimidation and other offences under Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita. It is alleged that Malik later circulated a WhatsApp message calling for work suspension till the cancellation of FIR.

Acting Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Vikas Bahl said law has been laid down by the Apex Court that any call for strike by member(s) of the Bar Association would be illegal. It thus observed,

"We are of the considered opinion that this action of respondent No.2 (Vikas Malik) and his assaulting petitioner No.3 (complainant in the FIR) amounts to interference in the administration of justice and prima facie a case of criminal contempt is made out under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, whereby it has been provided 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."

The Court also directed the Bar Council to look into complaints of sexual harassment levelled against Malik by some lady advocates.

"It has been brought to our notice that various complaints of sexual harassment of lady Advocates and lady employees of the Bar Association have been received against respondent No.2. (Vikas Malik) Resultantly, the office of the Chief Justice, which is in receipt of these complaints, is directed to supply copies of the said complaints to the Bar Council to look into these allegations also and to proceed accordingly. Being the Ist Bench, it is the bounden duty of this Court to protect the prestige of this Institution, which apparently has been lowered by respondent No.2, who still has not come forward to put in appearance even today, though well aware that the proceedings are pending before this Court," the division bench observed.

These observations were made while hearing a PIL filed by advocates of Punjab & Haryana High Court, alleging that Malik and Secretary of High Court Bar Association, Swaran Singh Tiwana have misused and embezzled the funds of the Association.

The plea also stated that during a General Body meeting in April, there was an order to remove both the office bearers. When lady advocates asked Malik to let the Vice President take charge of the office, he misbehaved with them, it added.

In then present hearing, the Court noted that the summons sent to Malik and Tiwana were "received back with the report of refusal, as they told that they were not Ex-President and Ex-Secretary."

It further noted the allegations that Malik assaulted one of petitioners in the PIL and FIR was lodged under Sections 191 (2) (Rioting), 190 (Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) 126 (2 (Wrongful restraint), 115 (2) (Voluntarily causing hurt), 351 (2) and 351 (3) (provisions of Criminal intimidation) of BNS.

The Court opined that, "the matter needs to be supervised by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, as certain other offences would arise from the plain reading of the FIR, which have not been mentioned." It further directed to consider the Medico Legal Report of the alleged victim.

With respect to the allegations of embezzlement, the Court noted that in the short reply filed on behalf of State Bar Council, it is submitted that the complaint is pending consideration and the Council is proceeding ahead with the complaint as per the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Taking note of the alleged watsapp message to suspend work till cancellation of FIR, the bench said, "In furtherance of his personal interests, respondent No.2 has made an unsuccessful attempt to call a General House meeting for suspension of work, which however was opposed by the members of the Bar Association itself."

While listing the matter for July 15, the Court said, it is open to the Bar Council to pass interim orders "to ensure the sanctity and respect of the Institution," in case Malik does not co- operate.

Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Lovepreet Kaur, Advocate, and Ms. Anjali Kukar (petitioner No.1).

Mr. Avinit Avasthi, Advocate, for respondent No.1.

Mr. Swaran Singh Tiwana, Advocate–respondent No.3 in person.

Anjali Kukar and others v. Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana through its Chairman and others

Click here to read order