'Disturbing Circumstances': P&H High Court Chief Justice Withdraws Case Listed Before Judge For Orders Upon Receiving Complaint

After receiving a complaint, the Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu has withdrawn a plea for quashing an FIR in a corruption matter from a single judge, on the same day it was listed for pronouncement. The CJ explained the decision to be in the "interest of the institution" and to "protect the reputation" of the judge.

In doing so he underscored that the power of the Chief Justice for "allocating a particular case to any particular Bench or withdrawing a particular case from any particular Bench and allocating the same to any other Judge are untrammelled and immune from judicial scrutiny". 

"This matter has come up before this Single Bench comprising of the Chief Justice under certain disturbing circumstances...," the order notes. 

The order states that the reason for "withdrawing this case" from the Single Judge was the receipt of complaint, (oral as well as written), which impelled the Chief Justice to requisition the record of this case from the concerned Single Bench and constitute another Single Bench comprising of Chief Justice on May 12 at 03.30 P.M.

The order noted that the decision was taken 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".

Stating that such complaints are made at the 11th hour, Chief Justice said, "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 In such situations, the reputation of the Bench which “heard and reserved” the case to be withdrawn is at stake.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. 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."

When the matter was withdrawn from single judge and listed before the Chief Justice, preliminary objection raised by senior counsel Mukul Rohtagi along with Puneet Bali and Rakesh Nehra representing petitioner that the instant Single Bench comprising of the Chief Justice cannot hear a case which was heard, reserved and listed for pronouncement of final order by other Single Bench. 

The order notes that the Chief Justice received certain complaints and these complaints "impelled" him to take emergent steps in the "interest of the institution" and also to preserve and protect the reputation and dignity of the single judge.

Since the matter had been heard and reserved by the concerned single judge on May 2, and the knowledge of the complaints was received by the Chief Justice as late as on May 08-09, "there was very little reaction time available" and the Chief Justice in the fitness of things "took drastic" step on May 10 by passing an administrative order withdrawing the instant case from the Single Bench, added the Court.

Rejecting the objections made by the senior counsel, the Chief Justice Nagu observed that, "the Chief Justice is the master of the roster, but once assignment of a case is made by Chief Justice 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."

 The Court opined that there is no express or implied bar for the Chief Justice under the High Court of Punjab and Haryana to withdraw any case, which is heard and reserved by any particular Bench and list the withdrawn case before any other Single Bench comprising of any Judge or the Chief Justice.

Chief Justice Nagu highlighted that, 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 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 of the Chief Justice for rehearing."

It further clarified that if the Chief Justice had not taken preventive emergent steps as aforesaid, then the Chief Justice would be failing in his duty and belying the oath taken by him.

"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...to be listed before another Single Bench," added the Chief Justice.

The court concluded that the administrative power available to the Chief Justice of making/amending the roster includes within its ambit, the power to assign and withdraw cases from any Bench. It said, "If an exception to this power is accepted by excluding those cases which are heard and reserved, then the object behind this power will stand defeated."

In the light of the above, the Court rejected all the objections made on withdrawing the case from the bench before it was listed for pronouncement and said, "post the matter for hearing on-merits on 26.05.2025."

Case Title: Roop Bansal v. State of Haryana

Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Senior Advocate (through v.c.), Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate, Mr. Harsh Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Sauhard Singh, Advocate, Mr. Rupender Singh, Advocate, Mr. Ankit Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Ashim Singla, Advocate, Mr. Aakash Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate, Ms. Bindu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Special counsel (through v.c.) with Mr. Lokesh Narang, Senior Panel Counsel for ED.