P&H High Court Chief Justice withdraws case from judge who heard and reserved verdict, assigns it to himself

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday rejected an objection against the Chief Justice's decision to withdraw a case from a High Court judge, following a complaint in the matter..The petition filed by M3M Group Director Roop Bansal sought quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) registered by Anti Corruption Bureau against him, judicial officer Sudhir Parmar (Special Judge CBI), Ajay Parmar - Deputy Manager (Legal) in M3M Group and other persons. The criminal case registered in 2023 accused the trial judge of extending undue favours to owners of M3M and IREO Group in a money laundering case. Parmar was suspended after registration of the case. As per the Enforcement Directorate (ED), he had received illegal gratification to the tune of ₹5 –7 crores from owners/promoters of IREO Group and M3M Group..Chief Justice Sheel Nagu on May 10 withdrew Bansal's quashing petition from the roster of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu after receipt of a complaint (oral as well as written) and listed it before himself. Pertinently, Justice Sindhu had reserved his decision in the matter. Senior Counsel Mukul Rohatgi, Puneet Bali and Rakesh Nehra, representing the accused, submitted before Justice Nagu's bench on May 12 that he cannot hear the case since the matter was heard, reserved and listed for pronouncement by Justice Sindhu..Rejecting the objection, Chief Justice Nagu in a judicial order on Friday said that there is no express or implied bar on Chief Justice to withdraw any case which is heard and reserved by any particular bench.Justice Nagu added that the decision to withdraw the case from Justice Sindhu was taken with a view to preserve the dignity and honour of the institution and also the public trust."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. Since the matter had been heard and reserved by Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu on 02.05.2025 and the knowledge of the complaints was received by the Chief Justice as late as on 08.05.2025/09.05.2025, there was very little reaction time available. Chief Justice in the fitness of things took drastic step on 10.05.2025 by passing an administrative order withdrawing the instant case from the Single Bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu and listing it before the Single Bench comprising the Chief Justice alone to hear the matter on 12.05.2025 at 3.30 P.M," the Court said. .The Court also said that the powers of Chief Justice in his capacity as master of the roster are wide, pervading and plenary. "These powers are circumscribed by only one consideration i.e. to protect the interest of the institution from being tarnished and to uphold the public trust reposed in judiciary by litigants. If these considerations are kept in mind, then the power of the Chief Justice of 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 untrammeled and immune from judicial scrutiny," it added..Justice Nagu further said that if he, as the Chief Justice, had not taken preventive emergent steps, then he would have failed in his duty and would be 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 of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu to be listed before another single-bench, he emphasised."The object sought to be achieved was to prevent possible damage to the reputation of the institution," the order said..The Court further said that 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. 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, it added.The Court further explained that sometimes the Chief Justice has to decide within a limited time on a complaint received at the 11th hour..Consequently, the Court dismissed the objection and posted the matter for hearing on merits on May 26..Senior Advocates Mukul Rohtagi, Puneet Bali and Rakesh Nehra with advocates Gagandeep Singh, Harsh Sharma, Sauhard Singh, Rupender Singh, Ankit Yadav, Ashim Singla, Aakash Sharma, Baljeet Beniwal and Bindu represented the petitioner Roop Bansal.Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain with Senior Panel Counsel Lokesh Narang represented the Enforcement Directorate, the intervenor in the case..[Read Order]