Taking suo motu cognisance of the recent firing incident involving Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association’s former secretary Gagandeep Jammu, the High Court on Wednesday not only directed immediate security cover and an expedited probe, but also came down heavily on the Bar for resorting to abstention from judicial work. Terming the move as “the easiest way out”, the Bench questioned its impact on litigants.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry took up the matter suo motu on the basis of a representation moved by the Bar Executive Committee highlighting the seriousness of the attack. Taking up the matter in the morning, the Bench directed authorities concerned to ensure protection of Jammu’s life and liberty. In compliance, a permanent PCR vehicle was stationed outside his residence and police protection was strengthened.
The Bar Association’s executive committee later in the day expressed its “sincere gratitude” to the Chief Justice for “taking prompt and expeditious action” its representation and further resolved to pursue the matter vigorously “so that the investigation in FIR registered on May 19 is conducted in a fair and speedy manner and the assailants are apprehended at the earliest”.
The resolution added: “The entire Bar stands firmly in solidarity with Gagandeep Jammu and reiterates its unwavering commitment towards the safety, dignity, and security of every member of the fraternity. As a mark of solidarity with our esteemed colleague and as a peaceful protest against the cowardly attack upon him, the executive committee has unanimously resolved that the members of the Bar shall abstain from work during the post-lunch session today”.
The resolution to stay away from work, however, did not go down well with the Bench. “If you abstain from work, the gangsters will stop functioning? We have not yet signed the order. I will not sign the order unless you withdraw the strike. We had taken the case out of turn and passed the order. We did our duty. Are you doing your duty towards your client?” the Bench questioned.
Expressing concern over the impact on litigants, the court said such abstentions directly burden ordinary litigants who travelled long distances for hearings. “I had not expected this. This came as a shock to me. Do you imagine the plight of the litigant, who must have come from 100-200 km?” Chief Justice Nagu questioned.
The Bench further observed that protest by abstaining from work amounted to an easy but not a fair recourse, urging the Bar to explore other modes of dissent rather than disrupting judicial functioning. When Bar representatives—including president Rohit Sud—submitted that the decision was taken in view of collective sentiments, the court reiterated its concern over professional responsibility and insisted that the call for suspension of work be withdrawn. The Bar later agreed to recall the protest.
During the hearing, the court also interacted with Jammu, questioning whether such protests added to his distress. Jammu, however, told the Bench that he had not sought judicial intervention in the matter and was already under severe mental stress following the attack.
Earlier, an unidentified assailant had fired at Jammu while he was travelling in Punjab, with bullets reportedly striking his vehicle, though he escaped unhurt. Mohali Police then registered an FIR under Section 109 of the BNS and relevant provisions of the Arms Act on his complaint, which alleges that the attacker was on a motorcycle. The court is expected to further examine the investigation status and the proposed SOP in the next hearing.
