Punjab & Haryana HC Lists Lawyer-Protest PIL as Bar Leaders Seek Amicable Resolution

A practising lawyer filed a PIL alleging that an ongoing lawyers’ protest in Punjab was denying litigants access to justice; the court adjourned to 23 July 2026 after Bar leaders sought an internal settlement.

A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, comprising Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, took up a public interest petition on 20 July 2026 raising a pointed concern: an ongoing protest by lawyers in Punjab was preventing litigants from accessing the courts. The petitioner, Arvind Seth, appeared in person. Senior office-bearers of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association also appeared before the Bench at the court’s request. The matter has been listed again on 23 July 2026.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Arvind Seth, a practising lawyer at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, filed CWP-PIL-181-2026 in his personal capacity. His grievance was that lawyers in Punjab were conducting a protest which, in its operation, was interfering with the administration of justice and effectively shutting out litigants who needed access to courts.

Seth acknowledged that protest by legitimate means is a recognised avenue for lawyers to highlight issues of concern. His submission, however, was that the right to protest does not extend to obstructing the administration of justice or denying litigants the ability to pursue their cases. On that basis, he sought judicial intervention.

Appearing before the Bench were Rohit Sud (President, HCBA), Parampreet Singh Bajwa (Secretary, HCBA), Ashish Rana (Treasurer, HCBA), Aashish Bishnoi (Vice President, HCBA), and Kirandeep Kaur (Joint Secretary, HCBA), all in person. Two former members of the Bar Council, Vishwajeet Singh and Sumanjit Kaur, also appeared in person.

The Legal Issue

The petition placed before the Bench a tension that courts across India have periodically encountered: whether, and in what circumstances, judicial intervention is warranted when a lawyers’ protest disrupts court functioning and thereby affects litigants’ right to access justice.

Seth’s position drew a distinction between the form of protest — which he accepted as legitimate — and its effect, which he characterised as an interference with the administration of justice. The prayer asked the court to step in on the judicial side to address that effect.

How the Bench Reasoned

The Bench did not decide the petition on merits at this stage. At the court’s own request, the President of the High Court Bar Association and members of the Bar Council appeared. Their collective position was that disputes of this character are better resolved within the Bar itself, without judicial adjudication.

The Bench accepted that view as a starting point. It expressed the hope that “wiser heads will prevail” and that the court would not be called upon to deal with the issue on the judicial side. The observation stops short of a direction but signals that the Bench expects the Bar to find an internal resolution before the next date.

Outcome

On the joint request of the parties, the Bench adjourned the matter. CWP-PIL-181-2026 is listed for hearing on 23 July 2026. No interim directions were issued.