Overview
- Unidentified assailants allegedly fired at advocate Gagandeep Jammu and an FIR was registered invoking Section 109 (attempt to murder) and Section 25 of the Arms Act after Jammu complained to police.
- A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court took suo motu cognisance, directed an expedited probe and ordered protective steps for Jammu.
- Police stationed a permanent PCR outside Jammu’s residence to provide round‑the‑clock security following the court’s directions.
- The High Court publicly rebuked the High Court Bar Association for a symbolic post‑lunch abstention, with Chief Justice Sheel Nagu saying he would not sign court orders unless the strike was withdrawn and asking how walkouts help litigants.
- The Bar has pressed for institutional safeguards such as a standard operating procedure, a dedicated police officer, day‑to‑day investigations and a security audit after citing other attacks on lawyers, raising a broader debate over lawyer safety versus uninterrupted access to justice.