Disturbing Circumstances Prompt Case Withdrawal By P&H Chief Justice | Reserved Matter Pulled From Single Judge After Complaint Received
Isabella Mariam
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has withdrawn a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR in a corruption case from a single judge on the same day it was scheduled for pronouncement. The Chief Justice cited the "interest of the institution" and the need to "protect the reputation" of the judge as the reasons for the move. He held that the authority to allocate or withdraw cases to or from a particular bench lies solely with the Chief Justice and is not subject to judicial scrutiny.
According to the order, the case came before the Chief Justice's bench under “disturbing circumstances.” The decision to reassign the matter stemmed from oral and written complaints received regarding the single judge previously handling the case. Consequently, the Chief Justice requisitioned the case records and constituted a new single bench, including himself, on May 12 at 3:30 PM.
The order stated the objective was to “quietus to the complaint, draw curtains to the controversy, and save the institution and the concerned Judge from any further embarrassment by deciding the case as expeditiously as possible.”
Referring to the timing of the complaint, the Chief Justice remarked that such issues are often raised at the last moment. He stated that decisions must be made swiftly, weighing the reputation of the bench that had already heard and reserved the matter against the institutional integrity and public confidence in the judiciary. He concluded that prioritizing the latter aligns with the Chief Justice’s oath and duty.
When the matter was reassigned to the Chief Justice’s bench, senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi, along with Puneet Bali and Rakesh Nehra, raised preliminary objections. They contended that a case already heard and reserved by another single judge could not be reassigned for decision by a different bench. However, the Chief Justice maintained that the complaints necessitated urgent action to protect the dignity of the judge and the judiciary.
Noting that the original hearing concluded on May 2 and the complaints surfaced only by May 8–9, the Chief Justice said there was minimal time to respond. On May 10, he passed an administrative order withdrawing the case from the original bench. He justified this as a drastic but necessary step.
Rejecting the objections, Chief Justice Nagu reiterated his position that the Chief Justice is the “master of the roster.” Once a case is assigned, it remains with the designated bench unless reallocation is deemed necessary by the Chief Justice.
The Court held there is no legal restriction, express or implied, that bars the Chief Justice from reassigning a case—even one that has already been heard and reserved. He asserted that the decision to reassign the matter to a newly formed bench led by himself was taken to maintain the court’s integrity and public trust.
The Chief Justice clarified that in the limited time available, the only viable option was to withdraw the matter from the original bench and list it before another. He concluded that administrative powers, including amending the roster, allow for such actions. He warned that exempting reserved matters from such authority would undermine the purpose of that power.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed all objections to the reassignment and scheduled the case for a hearing on merits on May 26, 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Mr. Puneet Bali, Mr. Rakesh Nehra, with Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Mr. Harsh Sharma, Mr. Sauhard Singh, Mr. Rupender Singh, Mr. Ankit Yadav, Mr. Ashim Singla, Mr. Aakash Sharma, Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Ms. Bindu
For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana; Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Special Counsel with Mr. Lokesh Narang, Senior Panel Counsel for ED
Case Title: Roop Bansal v. State of Haryana
