Article 21 Cannot Be Used as a Shield to Abuse Legal Process; Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Advocate for Using Derogatory Language Against Chandigarh SSP and Bar Association Secretary, Dismisses Petition Over Baseless Allegations
Case Name: Ravneet Kaur v. Kanwardeep Kaur and Others
Date of Judgment: 06.10.2026
Citation: CRWP No. 7390 of 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikram Aggarwal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be invoked as a pretext to abuse the process of law through unsubstantiated allegations against public officials. The Court strongly deprecated the use of derogatory and intemperate language in judicial pleadings against the Chandigarh Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) and the then Secretary of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association. It emphasised that advocates are expected to maintain judicial discipline and decorum and exercise particular caution while making allegations in court proceedings.
Summary: The petitioner, a practising advocate, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution alleging harassment, misuse of official authority, registration of false FIRs and inaction on her complaints by the Chandigarh SSP. She sought protection of her fundamental rights and directions for the SSP’s personal appearance, suspension from service and stoppage of salary and benefits.
The petition contained serious allegations against the SSP and the then Secretary of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Gagandeep Jammu, couched in language which the Court found highly objectionable.
In response, the SSP filed an affidavit denying the allegations and stated that the petitioner had submitted approximately 191 complaints between 2023 and 2026, of which only two remained pending inquiry. It was further submitted that two FIRs had been registered against the petitioner and that her earlier petition seeking quashing of one of those FIRs had already been dismissed.
The High Court observed that the petitioner, being an advocate, was expected to exercise greater restraint and maintain the discipline and decorum required in judicial pleadings. The Court strongly deprecated the language employed against the senior police officer and the Bar Association’s former Secretary.
Finding the allegations unsubstantiated and baseless, the Court held that invoking constitutional protection under Article 21 cannot justify misuse of judicial proceedings. The Court also observed that the FIRs registered against the petitioner would proceed in accordance with law.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition as being completely devoid of merit, holding that the allegations against the Chandigarh SSP and the former Bar Association Secretary were unsubstantiated and baseless.
The Court strongly deprecated the intemperate language used in the petition and reiterated that constitutional remedies cannot be misused to level unsupported allegations against public officials.