Public debate often moves at a speed very different from the pace of legal inquiry. It is shaped by impression, by early reports, and by fragments of information. Once an allegation surfaces, the conversation gains momentum long before evidence is placed on record. The recent exoneration of the legal team and directors connected with M3M by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana offers a moment to pause and examine how easily narratives form, and why the presumption of innocence remains central to any civilised legal order.
The allegation in question concerned bench hunting. Few phrases carry the same weight within the legal sphere. It suggests an attempt to influence the composition of a Bench by using procedural steps as a lever. Even the suggestion of such conduct can create serious reputational harm. This is why the enquiry report issued by the Bar Council deserves close attention. The committee did not rely on speculation. It examined the record, heard each submission with care, and reached a conclusion grounded in documentary evidence.
The enquiry’s findings do more than clear individuals from a serious accusation. They remind us of a wider principle: the justice system requires fidelity to the presumption of innocence. When allegations travel faster than facts, institutions must remain anchored to this principle. The M3M enquiry stands as a clear demonstration of how such anchoring strengthens public confidence.
Presumption of Innocence and Its Fragile Position in Public Discourse
Presumption of innocence, in its essence, is a safeguard. It ensures no person or institution is condemned without proof. The concept finds expression in criminal law, yet its moral force extends far beyond criminal trials. Whenever an allegation surfaces in the public sphere, presumption of innocence protects against premature judgement.
Modern public discourse, shaped by swift communication, often places individuals under scrutiny before any inquiry begins. When the bench hunting allegation connected with M3M surfaced, public conversation gravitated instantly towards suspicion. The movement of filings across different Benches appeared unusual to some observers, and the narrative of impropriety gained early traction. Yet the enquiry has now demonstrated something important. What seems unusual may be entirely routine once explained through the administrative logic of court listing.
Presumption of innocence exists precisely for moments like this. It prevents opinion from outrunning evidence. It insists upon calm reflection before reputations are damaged.
How the Bar Council Anchored Its Reasoning in Evidence
The enquiry conducted by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana followed a structure widely regarded as essential to natural justice. It did not adopt a perfunctory review. It sought records from the registry, analysed listing histories, and questioned whether any act by counsel influenced the administrative movement of the matter. Each component of the inquiry had a clear evidentiary basis.
Documents from the registry revealed that assignments followed ordinary administrative rules. Petitions moved from one Bench to another due to roster changes, availability of judges, and standard listing procedures. The enquiry committee examined whether any action taken by the legal team had a causal connection with these administrative movements. It found none.
This reliance on documentary truth over public speculation embodies the spirit of presumption of innocence. When a disciplinary body examines allegations through evidence rather than perception, it protects professional integrity and strengthens institutional legitimacy.
Why Bench Hunting Allegations Require Exceptional Caution
Bench hunting is an allegation capable of triggering institutional distrust. Courts depend on public belief in neutral case assignment. When doubt arises regarding manipulation of this process, the consequences extend beyond a single matter. Professional disciplinary bodies, therefore, bear a heightened responsibility when such allegations surface.
The enquiry’s findings highlight a significant point. The legal profession often functions within procedural complexities not easily understood outside legal circles. Withdrawal of petitions, refiling, correction of defects, and strategic adjustments occur frequently in corporate litigation. These actions may appear suspicious to an outsider, although they often reflect routine procedural choices.
This is why disciplinary bodies must adopt a careful lens. Without measured scrutiny, legitimate conduct may be misinterpreted. The M3M enquiry shows how a fact-driven approach prevents such misinterpretation. Once the committee placed procedural steps within their correct administrative context, the allegation lost substance.
Corporate Litigation and the Risk of Misplaced Accusation
Corporate entities frequently face multiple proceedings across jurisdictions. Legal teams navigate timelines, regulatory responses, and complex factual matrices. Procedural variations emerge not as instruments of manipulation but as necessary components of responsible legal strategy. Yet corporate names attract attention. When allegations arise, they may gain more traction simply because the corporate entity is prominent.
The enquiry involving M3M therefore raises a broader point about reputational risk within the corporate sector. Allegations are often amplified long before evidence is reviewed. Corporations must then rely on robust internal systems to preserve institutional integrity. Clear records of legal decisions, transparent communication with counsel, and documented rationale for procedural steps become essential safeguards.
The M3M enquiry revealed that the legal team’s actions aligned with procedural norms. Without such a factual finding, public suspicion might have persisted. Corporate actors must view this as a lesson in the value of documentation and candour. When records can explain procedural steps, the risk of misunderstanding decreases.
Natural Justice as a Counterweight to Public Pressure
The enquiry committee demonstrated an adherence to natural justice that stands out in an environment often shaped by public perception. Each individual implicated in the allegation received an opportunity to place submissions before the committee. The record was not read selectively. It was examined comprehensively. The final order did not merely state a conclusion but explained the reasoning that supported it.
Natural justice is not an abstract ideal. It is the mechanism that prevents disciplinary proceedings from becoming instruments of public sentiment. The committee did not yield to the weight of early narratives. It remained committed to the principle that allegations require proof. This commitment reinforces the value of institutional independence.
By upholding natural justice, the Bar Council reinforced the foundational idea behind presumption of innocence. It affirmed the notion that disciplinary power cannot be exercised in response to public momentum but must be guided by verified fact.
What the Enquiry Reveals About Court Administration
One of the valuable contributions of the enquiry lies in its explanation of how court administration functions. Court listing is often misunderstood. The registry follows rules relating to rosters, subject categories, availability of judges, and administrative rotation. Counsel cannot dictate such parameters. If listings shift across Benches, the reasons usually lie within these administrative systems.
The enquiry brought these aspects to the surface. Media coverage following the order highlighted how the committee sought and received records from the registry. These records confirmed the neutrality of assignment processes. Such clarification carries wider implications. It reinforces confidence in the court administration. It dispels misconceptions about possible influence. It reassures litigants that court processes remain anchored in neutrality.
Public confidence in courts is strengthened when administrative transparency increases. The enquiry indirectly enhances this transparency by explaining why listings moved in the way they did.
The Ethical Imperative Behind Presumption of Innocence
Presumption of innocence is not simply a procedural safeguard. It carries ethical weight. It demands patience and restraint. It insists that reputations must not be damaged before evidence is examined. It reminds society that allegations, however serious, must be tested through due process.
The M3M enquiry shows the harm premature conclusions can inflict. Before the Bar Council reviewed records, the allegation had gained visibility. Some viewed procedural steps with suspicion, unaware of the administrative logic behind listing movements. The enquiry overturned this early narrative through evidence. The case therefore becomes an example of why presumption of innocence must remain central to public and professional conversations.
Legal ethics requires not only adherence to rules but also protection against unfair stigma. Lawyers must be able to represent clients without fear their every procedural action will be interpreted as improper. Presumption of innocence ensures this. It anchors the distinction between accusation and proof.
A Moment for Regtech to Reflect on Institutional Safeguards
Regtech platforms often focus on compliance, risk analysis, and systems that strengthen institutional processes. The M3M enquiry aligns with this perspective. It shows how internal checks, careful documentation, and transparent administrative systems protect institutions from reputational harm.
Court registries, disciplinary committees, and corporate legal departments each play a role in preserving procedural integrity. When these systems function well, they create a strong defence against unfounded allegations. Regtech conversations increasingly emphasise the importance of data trails, procedural clarity, and record-based decision-making. The enquiry offers a practical example of how such systems prevent misinterpretation.
Conclusion
The exoneration of the legal team and directors associated with M3M is not merely a closure of a disciplinary matter. It is a reminder of the essential role presumption of innocence plays in a modern justice system. When allegations arise, especially in high-profile matters, public conversation often moves ahead of facts. Institutions must therefore remain grounded in principles, evidence, and fairness.
The enquiry has shown how allegations lose force once subjected to disciplined scrutiny. It has demonstrated the value of natural justice, the importance of documentary evidence, and the independence of court administration. It has also reminded corporate actors and the legal profession that procedural choices must always be capable of explanation.
Presumption of innocence is not a shield for wrongdoing. It is a safeguard against injustice. The M3M enquiry reinforces this truth. It invites professionals, corporations, and institutions to remember that fairness must remain the foundation upon which every accusation is tested.