The Delhi High Court has temporarily stayed a controversial decision made by the Bar Council of India (BCI), which had barred senior Punjab-based lawyer Lokinder Singh Phaugat from practicing law. The BCI had issued this order on February 27, 2025, citing ongoing police complaints and the risk of evidence tampering.
This interim relief came from a bench led by Justice Mini Pushkarna, who issued notice in response to Phaugat’s petition challenging the BCI’s decision.
Read also: Delhi High Court Sets Guidelines to Protect Orphaned Children’s Property and Guardianship Rights
“Considering the submissions made before this Court, it is directed that Para 15(iv) of the impugned order dated 27th February, 2025, shall remain suspended, till the next date of hearing,” — Delhi High Court, April 2, 2025
Background of the Case
Lokinder Singh Phaugat, a seasoned advocate who has served as the President of the District Bar Association, Rohtak, on eight occasions, faced disciplinary action after allegations of financial misconduct surfaced in connection with bar association activities.
The Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana took initial action by debarring him from contesting elections and referring the matter to its Disciplinary Committee. Later, the BCI took a stricter step by prohibiting Phaugat from practicing law altogether, citing the possibility of evidence tampering due to his influential position.
Phaugat’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, argued that the BCI acted beyond its authority by banning legal practice without a proper disciplinary trial.
“A complaint of professional misconduct must be tried by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council... without such trial and without evidence, no such punitive action can be justified.” — Counsel for Phaugat
The counsel further relied on a landmark judgment from the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409, which emphasizes that any punishment for professional misconduct must follow due process and be based on evidence presented before the Disciplinary Committee.
“...a complaint of professional misconduct is required to be tried by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council... the enquiry is a detailed and elaborate one and is not of a summary nature.” — Supreme Court, 1998 Judgment
The BCI’s controversial order dated February 27, 2025, had multiple directives:
“(ii) The Secretary, Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana is directed to lodge a police complaint before the competent authorities, preferably with the Vigilance Department of Haryana.”
“(iv) During the pendency of that complaint, the respondent No. 1 is prohibited from doing legal practice as they may tamper with the evidence, and moreover, statedly, he is very popular and dominant in District Bar Association, Rohtak.”
“(v) Show cause notice to be issued to the current President Mr. Arvind Kumar Sheoran for failure to act impartially.”
These directions were seen as bypassing the standard legal process, prompting Phaugat’s legal team to challenge the validity of the order.
After reviewing the arguments and relevant legal precedents, the Delhi High Court decided to suspend the clause that barred Phaugat from practicing law.
The matter has been posted for the next hearing on August 1, 2025, and the respondents have been given four weeks to file their replies. Any rejoinders must be submitted within two weeks thereafter.
“Issue notice. Let reply be filed within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks.” — Delhi High Court Order
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nipun Arora, Mr. Shivender Gupta, Mr. Aman Singh, Ms. Kesri Gupta, Mr. Chinmay Dubey, Mr. Harsh Gautam and Mr. Vignesh, Advocates with petitioner in person
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 1/BCI; Mr. HPS Ishar, Advocate for respondent No. 2; Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik with Ms. Rhythm Bharadwaj, Advocates for respondent nos. 3 and 4
Title: LOKINDER SINGH PHOUGAT v. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA & ORS
