“Do you imagine the plight of that litigant who must have come from 100 kilometres or 200 kilometres just with the hope that his case will be decided today?”With these remarks, Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Justice Sheel Nagu on Wednesday questioned the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association’s decision to abstain from work during the post-lunch session in solidarity with advocate Gagandeep Jammu, two days after an alleged attempt on his life.The observations came during the hearing of a suo motu matter taken up by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Nagu and Justice Justice Sanjiv Berry in connection with the alleged firing incident involving Jammu.Earlier in the day, the Bar Association issued a communication stating that the High Court had directed authorities to ensure the “life and liberty” of Jammu and that a permanent PCR had been stationed outside his residence. The association also said it would pursue a fair and expeditious investigation into the FIR registered on May 19, 2026.The Bar Association later announced that members would abstain from work during the post-lunch session as a mark of solidarity with Jammu and in protest against the alleged attack.During the proceedings, High Court Bar Association president Rohit Sud submitted that the abstention was symbolic and reflected the sentiments of Bar members.Chief Justice Nagu, however, objected to the move and questioned the impact such decisions had on litigants.Story continues below this ad“If you abstain from work, will the gangsters 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 Chief Justice asked.When members of the Bar informed the court that the abstention was limited to the post-lunch session and intended as a symbolic gesture, the Chief Justice responded: “You are disrespecting your profession by going on strike.”At another point during the hearing, the Chief Justice remarked: “What attracts you towards just not working? That’s your duty. It is your duty as an advocate to represent the client.”The Bench also observed that there were “other ways” to express solidarity apart from abstaining from court work.Story continues below this adDuring the hearing, the court questioned whether Jammu himself approved of the decision to suspend work.Addressing the Bench, Jammu clarified that he had neither called for the abstention nor initially supported a strike.“I was the first one to say that I do not want a strike. I said so. I said, I want results. I don’t want a strike,” Jammu told the court.He, however, added that members of the Bar later felt stronger collective action was required because they believed there had not been sufficient progress in the matter.Story continues below this ad“If there is nothing happening, there is no remedy left, then we should be the ones standing in solidarity,” Jammu said, while maintaining that the final decision rested with the Bar Association and its members.Jammu also told the court that he had not asked advocates to abstain from work. “It is not me who has called the strike,” he said.When asked directly by the Chief Justice whether he supported the abstention, Jammu replied: “I would like to let the Bar members decide. I won’t interfere in the matter of the Bar.”At one stage during the hearing, Jammu also expressed discomfort over the manner in which the issue was being discussed before the court.Story continues below this adDuring the proceedings, Sud submitted that the Bar wanted stronger institutional safeguards to deter attacks on advocates and sought day-to-day investigation and trial in such matters.“It should send a message to the larger public also that you can’t touch lawyers like this,” Sud submitted before the Bench.Sud also referred to discussions regarding the formulation of a standard operating procedure and the appointment of a dedicated police officer to exclusively handle issues concerning advocates.In a separate communication issued earlier in the day, the Bar Association also referred to another alleged incident involving advocate Adarshdeep Singh Brar, claiming that unidentified persons had attempted to abduct him from within the High Court premises. The association sought enhanced security measures, including a security audit of the High Court complex.