Bar Council Suspends Advocate for One Year Over Harassment, Misconduct Allegations
Chandigarh, June 19: In a firm stance against unethical conduct within the legal profession, the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana (BCPH) has suspended a city-based lawyer for one year. The move comes in response to grave allegations of harassment, deception, and abuse of legal process filed by the daughter-in-law of the lawyer's 70-year-old landlord.
In its statement, the BCPH refrained from disclosing the advocate's name, but confirmed that the disciplinary action was taken after a detailed inquiry into the complaint, which painted a troubling picture of the lawyer’s conduct both as a tenant and as a member of the legal fraternity.
According to the complaint, the lawyer had initially misrepresented himself as a banker to secure the rented premises. It was only later that the family discovered he was, in fact, a practising advocate. What followed, they allege, was a nightmare: delayed rent payments, escalating harassment, and veiled threats.
The elderly landlord, now battling health issues, reportedly lived in constant fear as the tenant allegedly refused to vacate the premises unless compensated. The advocate also purportedly misused his legal knowledge to file false complaints in an apparent bid to pressure and intimidate the family into submission.
What stood out to the Bar Council was not just the severity of the allegations, but the advocate’s unwillingness to cooperate with the disciplinary process. Despite being served multiple notices, he failed to appear before the Council, forcing an ex parte decision.
“The actions of the advocate amount to professional misconduct and bring disrepute to the legal profession,” the BCPH said in its order. “Such behaviour is unbecoming of an officer of the court and undermines public trust in the justice system.”
With the order now in effect, the lawyer is barred from practising or appearing in any court across India for the next one year—a strong message from the Bar Council that the profession will not shield those who misuse their legal standing to exploit others.
For the landlord and his family, the decision brings some measure of relief, if not full closure. As the daughter-in-law expressed in a brief statement, “We only wanted peace and dignity for my father-in-law. No one should have to suffer this kind of fear in their own home.”
This case stands as a sobering reminder that legal acumen must never be used as a weapon of oppression—and that the guardians of justice must hold their own to the highest standards.
