On 12-11-2025, the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana’s Privilege Committee cleared the M3M Group’s directors and legal team of allegations related to “bench hunting,” concluding that the claims lacked substantive evidence.
On 4-8-2025, the Chairman of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana directed the initiation of an enquiry by the Privileged Committee after taking suo motu cognizance of media reports alleging “Bench Hunting” and “Forum Shopping” by certain advocates appearing for Director of the M3M builder group.
Upon preliminary review, the Committee found prima facie indications of irregularities involving the said advocates and notices were issued to them individually. Written responses and supporting documents were solicited by all parties.
The Committee conducted a comprehensive investigation, reviewing written replies, affidavits, WhatsApp messages, emails, and other relevant communications. The Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court was also consulted regarding reported restrictions on appearances of certain advocates before specific benches.
The enquiry examined the circumstances of FIR No. 0006 dated 17-04-2025, registered under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Penal Code 1860 against the directors of M3M. A petition seeking quashing of the FIR (CRM-M No. 51949 of 2023) had been withdrawn on 13-02-2025 due to technical defects and absence of material particulars. The Committee found the withdrawal to be routine and bona fide, concluding that all litigants involved in this petition were innocent.
The controversy escalated during proceedings in the second petition (CRM-M No. 19843-2025). On 14-01-2025, one Bench recused itself without making any adverse observations. The matter was subsequently reassigned but again transferred on administrative grounds due to an advocate’s name appearing on a restricted list for that Bench. The advocate concerned clarified that he had no knowledge of such a list, and the Committee accepted his explanation, noting that confidential restriction lists are not disclosed to advocates.
To confirm the issue, the Committee met with the Registrar General, who stated that no rule or public notification exists informing advocates that they cannot appear before specific judges. Such confidential lists remain exclusively with the Bench and the Registry.
The enquiry later gained further attention when, after a third Bench heard the matter and reserved orders, multiple complaints were lodged against the presiding judge. In view of the seriousness of the allegations and to maintain institutional integrity, the Hon’ble Chief Justice reassigned the case to his own Bench.
On 23-05-2025, Senior Advocates objected and argued that the matter was already heard and reserved elsewhere. These objections were rejected by the Chief Justice based on authoritative Supreme Court precedents, including Shanti Bhushan v. Supreme Court of India (2018) 8 SCC 396, State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) 1 SCC 1, and Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318. The Committee observed that although the objections may not have been ideally advanced, they were raised in good-faith legal interpretation and did not amount to Bench Hunting or Forum Shopping.
Contrary to certain media reports suggesting otherwise, the judicial order dated 23-05-2025 contained no remark indicating that any advocate or litigant had engaged in such practices. The Committee noted that these media articles were factually inaccurate and unsupported by the record, and that some complaints appeared to rely solely on such reports.
After an exhaustive review of all submissions and materials, including written responses, statements, digital communications, and multiple rounds of personal and virtual interactions, the Committee found no evidence of any deliberate or coordinated attempt by any advocate or litigant to influence bench assignment or secure a favorable order through forum selection.
Accordingly, the Committee exonerated and declared the legal team along with directors of M3M innocent. The Committee concluded its report and directed that the file be consigned, and a copy placed before the Chairman for information.