HC changes judges’ roster

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, February 3

Less than a month after the Punjab and Haryana High Court came out with a new judges’ roster, it has carried out amendments in the roll of duties. One of the judges earlier heading a Division Bench, which passed an order adversely commented upon by the Supreme Court, has been shifted as a second Judge in another Division Bench. 

Amendments in the judges’ roster are not uncommon and are carried out from time to time at regular intervals and there is nothing to suggest that this and other changes are an aftermath of the SC order.

Otherwise also, shifting of judges from Single Benches to Division Benches, and the other way round, is common. A senior Judge sitting as second Judge is also a regular practice. At the same time, short gap between the two rosters has given rise to speculation of sorts.

The initial roster came into force with effect from January 7 after the culmination of nearly two-week winter vacation. The Judge heading a Single Bench after the break was in the roster assigned the task of hearing writ and criminal matters. The Judge has now be a made a part of a Division Bench hearing writ petitions related to Central Administrative Tribunal, criminal appeals, and appeals against acquittal.

The issue has its genesis in civil writ petition No. 24 of 2019 filed by TTL HOLIDAYS against the Union of India and another respondent on January 3 when the High Court was observing winter break and the Judge was heading the Division Bench.

An ex parte ad interim order was passed, which eventually was challenged before the SC.

The SC not only expressed surprise, but virtually censured the High Court. The SC order dated January 25, placed before a different Bench now hearing the matter, has been reproduced by the court in its order dated January 29. 

It says: “We are surprised that an ex parte ad interim order has been passed on the very day that the petition was moved in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. We have been apprised of the fact that Air India’s agreement with Amadeus has been terminated with effect from December 4, 2018, which Amadeus itself has not challenged. We are satisfied that this kind of order flies in the face of Order 39 of the CPC.” The case now stands adjourned to February 20.