District Bar Associations 'Pampered' By Haryana Govt, Chambers Have Become 'Addas' Of Property Dealers: Supreme Court

In an advocate's challenge to his disqualification from contesting Karnal Bar Association elections, the Supreme Court today expressed serious displeasure with the manner of functioning of Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana as well as the Karnal Bar Association.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, issuing notice on the advocate' plea, asked Senior Advocate RS Cheema to suggest names of senior/respected members of Karnal Bar to whom affairs of the Bar Association could be handed over as an interim measure.

Briefly stated, the aggrieved advocate filed the petition contending that his disqualification prevented him from contesting recent Karnal Bar Association elections and violated his rights as an advocate.

Senior Advocate Narender Hooda appeared for him and contended that the petitioner was barred from contesting, pending constitution of an Enquiry Committee and consequent enquiry. In appeal, the Bar Council of India stayed the order (in February, 2025). However, against the BCI order, a writ petition was filed, which came to be allowed by the High Court on the very day that it was listed for the first time ie February 27 - without issuing notice of motion.

The senior counsel argued that the election was held on the next day (ie February 28). As the Returning Officer said that he could not hold the elections in the existing scenario, a new RO was appointed who went to the district bar and declared 4 unopposed candidates as elected. "Not a single vote was cast, this is what the Bar Council seems to be interested [in]...", Hooda stressed. 

"These Bar Councils, particularly this State Bar Council, have become such a shameful association...", remarked Justice Kant in response. Subsequently, when the senior counsel attempted to draw attention to the allegation levelled against the petitioner regarding bungling/misappropriation of funds in construction of chambers (which ended up in his disqualification), the judge was quick to add,

"This allegation must be correct. This allegation must be 100% correct. We have no doubt at all in our mind that all office bearers...I have seen so many district bars, they are indulging...Government of Haryana has pampered them, they have spoiled them. These chambers have become all addas of property dealers. No serious professional is sitting there! We know."

To a counsel appearing for the State Bar Council, Justice Kant posed, "here, you are getting monthly, weekly extension...and this is how you are performing?" Ultimately, the bench issued notice and sought above-mentioned suggestions from Senior Advocate Cheema.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Narender Hooda; AoR Shrey Kapoor; Advocates Karan Kapoor and Manik Kapoor

Case Title: SANDEEP CHAUDHRY Versus JAGMAL SINGH JATAIN AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 7868-7869/2025