The Chief Justice (CJ) of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has withdrawn a case from its judge “in the interest of the institution” and to “protect the reputation” of the judge after receiving “oral and written” complaints, according to an order from the CJ.
The court also asserted that the power of the Chief Justice to allocate a particular case to any particular bench or withdraw a particular case from any particular bench and allocate the same to any other judge is “untrammelled and immune from judicial scrutiny”.
The order came after eminent lawyer Mukul Rohtagi, the counsel for the petitioner Roop Bansal, who had sought the quashing of an FIR registered against him by the Haryana Anti-Corruption Bureau under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Panchkula on April 17, had objected to the withdrawal of the case.
The petition was heard by Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu who reserved the judgement on May 2.
However, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu withdrew the case from Justice Sindhu after receiving some “oral and written” complaints and constituted another bench comprising himself and listed the matter on May 12, to “draw curtains to the controversy and save the institution and the concerned judge from any further embarrassment”.
Mr. Rohtagi objected to the withdrawal of the case, arguing that the matter, which is “heard and reserved” by a bench holding roster, cannot be withdrawn from that roster to be heard by any other single bench, including that of the Chief Justice.
“The reason for withdrawing this case from the Single Bench Criminal Roster of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, was the receipt of complaint, (oral as well as written), which impelled the Chief Justice to requisition the record of this case from the said Single Bench and constitute another Single Bench comprising of Chief Justice on May 12 at 03.30 p.m. to give 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,” said the order which was passed on Friday (May 23, 2025).
The Chief Justice received certain complaints, and these complaints impelled the Chief Justice to take emergent steps in the interest of the institution and also to preserve and protect the reputation and dignity of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, stated the order of the Chief Justice.
Since the matter had been heard and reserved by Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu on May 2 and the knowledge of the complaints was received by the Chief Justice as late as May 8-9, there was very little reaction time available, it said.
The Chief Justice, in the fitness of things, took a drastic step on May 10 by passing an administrative order withdrawing the instant case from Justice Sindhu and listing it before the single bench comprising the Chief Justice alone to hear the matter on May 12, according to the order.
On objection raised by the petitioner’s counsel on withdrawal of the case, the order stated, “It is not disputed that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster, but once Chief Justice makes assignment of a case to a particular Bench by way of roster or by administrative order, then that particular case falls within the exclusive domain of the assigned Bench till its decision except where the Roster is changed or the Chief Justice allots that particular case to some other Bench.”
From a close scrutiny of the ratio of various judgments relied upon and having gone through the rules and orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, “this court finds that there is no express or implied bar for the Chief Justice to withdraw any case, which is heard and reserved by any particular Bench”, the order said.
Powers of Chief Justice in his capacity as Master of the Roster are “wide, pervading and plenary”, said the order.
These powers are circumscribed by only one consideration that is to protect the interest of the institution from being tarnished and to uphold the public trust reposed in the judiciary by litigants, it said.
If these considerations are kept in mind, then the power of the Chief Justice to allocate a particular case to any particular Bench or withdraw a particular case from any particular Bench and allocate the same to any other Judge is untrammelled and immune from judicial scrutiny, said the order.
The order said the factual situation in the present case reveals that the Chief Justice with a view to preserve the dignity and honour of the institution and so also the public trust, took the emergent step by withdrawing the instant case, which was heard and reserved for pronouncement of judgment, and listed the same before a newly constituted single bench comprising the chief justice for rehearing.
“In the attending factual scenario, if the Chief Justice had not taken preventive emergent steps, then the Chief Justice would be failing in his duty and belying the oath taken by him,” the order said.
“The only course available to the Chief Justice in the limited reaction time, was to withdraw the heard and reserved case from the single bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu to be listed before another Single Bench. The object sought to be achieved was to prevent possible damage to the reputation of the institution,” said the order.
The object is to ensure the administration of justice by allocating cases of different natures to available Benches to achieve the ultimate goal of fair and speedy justice for the litigants. To achieve this objective Chief Justice inter-alia performs the ancillary function of looking into written or oral complaints against any particular bench, the order said.
This function is discharged by subjective assessment based on objective material in hand, which may be in the shape of oral or written complaint. Occasionally, such complaints are received at the 11th hour when the reaction time with the Chief Justice is limited, the order said.
Thus, the Chief Justice has to decide within this limited available time, as to which course of action is to be taken.
“In such situations, the reputation of the Bench which ‘heard and reserved’ the case to be withdrawn is at stake. On the other hand, is the overall reputation of the institution and public trust of people at large in the judicial system,” said the order.
In this piquant situation, if the Chief Justice chooses the latter, then in my humble and considered opinion, the Chief Justice stands by his oath and public trust, said the order.
Published – May 24, 2025 06:15 pm IST
