Gagandeep Singh Jammu, secretary of the bar association, said the two clarified they were only engaged to argue the case just a few days earlier, and had no role in filing the petitions.The Privilege Committee of the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana has given a clean chit to senior advocates Rakesh Nehra and Puneet Bali, along with their associates, in its ongoing probe into “bench hunting” at the high court. The committee said no evidence surfaced against them but confirmed it has summoned two Delhi-based lawyers in connection with the Roop Bansal versus State of Haryana case.The committee further said its inquiry revealed attempts at “bench hunting” by a clandestine nexus of real estate, financial, and industrial players.Earlier, on August 7, the committee had summoned 16 lawyers, including Nehra and Bali, over allegations of manipulating bench assignment in a high-profile corruption case involving Gurugram-based real estate developer Roop Bansal.After examining the matter, the committee noted that both senior advocates fully cooperated during the proceedings, reflecting “their commitment to transparency, integrity, and professional ethics”.In their replies, Nehra and Bali categorically said that the two petitions in question were neither filed from their offices nor by any of their associate advocates who included Sauhard Singh, Rupender Singh, Bindu Tanwar, Ankit Yadav, Anmol Chandan, Gagandeep Singh, and Aakash Sharma.Gagandeep Singh Jammu, secretary of the bar association, said the two clarified they were only engaged to argue the case just a few days earlier, and had no role in filing the petitions.Advocate APS Shergill appeared in person along with SPS Bhullar and filed his reply, stating he was engaged by Baljit Beniwal and was unaware if his name figured in any high court bench-specific restriction list. He clarified that he had filed only CRM-M No. 19843 of 2025, in which other advocates were also listed as filing counsel. Shergill said he received his drafting fee via bank transfer and signed the petition as instructed by Beniwal.Story continues below this adSimilarly, Advocate JK Singla appeared with his counsel Sandeep Jain and submitted his reply, which was taken on record. He had filed two cases, including CRM-M No. 19843 of 2025.The committee observed that several advocates representing Roop Bansal were engaged by Delhi-based lawyers Gulshan alias Gulshan Sachdeva and Siddhrath Bhardwaj, who also appeared in related cases before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The panel noted that details of restrictions on case listings for certain advocates are not in the public domain, and many lawyers were unaware of them except Sachdeva and Bhardwaj, who appeared “unusually well-informed.”Notices have been issued to both through the Bar Council of Delhi, directing them to appear in person with a written response on August 27, the next date of hearing. The committee has also summoned advocate Kunal Dawar, who earlier filed a petition in the matter only to withdraw it with liberty to refile.Highlighting the gravity of the issue, the panel said its inquiry has exposed a larger threat: attempts at bench hunting appear to be orchestrated by vested interests using money power to influence the administration of justice. Comparing the practice to a “virus that weakens and paralyses the judicial system,” the committee warned that such lobbies pose a serious danger to the integrity of the legal profession.Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd