Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal bids farewell

Hours before demitting office, Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal led a Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court flagged “profiteering” in the auction of residential plots and flats in the tricity while observing that the spiraling prices had pushed housing beyond the reach of the salaried and middle classes.

The Bench then directed Punjab, Haryana, and Chandigarh to place before it a proposal aimed at restoring affordable housing through mechanisms such as a draw of lots.

The order, passed shortly before his retirement on Monday upon attaining the age of superannuation, was widely seen as emblematic of Justice Grewal’s broader judicial philosophy — humane, rights-centric and deeply mindful of the Constitution’s promise of dignity.

At a warm farewell reference held in his honour, the legal fraternity, including members of the Bar, recalled a tenure marked by decisions that repeatedly foregrounded fairness, accountability, and the rights of the vulnerable.

Justice Grewal, in one such matter, invoked the constitutional right to shelter while coming to the aid of a minor girl whose father — a jhuggi resident found eligible for a flat under the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme — died before the allotment could be made.

Rejecting the Chandigarh Housing Board’s refusal on technical grounds, the court held that the child’s right flowed from her father’s eligibility and emphasised that constitutional courts must adopt a liberal approach while dealing with the rehabilitation of marginalised citizens.

The same emphasis on fairness was visible in a case where the court held an insurance company bound by its own medical assessment after it attempted to repudiate a policy claim despite having conducted tests and declared the insured fit before issuing the policy.

Justice Grewal also presided over matters involving larger questions of governance. In a significant order, the Bench stayed the Punjab Land Pooling Policy, 2025, observing that it appeared to create unequal classes of landowners and could bypass safeguards under the land acquisition law. The state later withdrew the policy.

In another case involving allegations of bribery against a senior bureaucrat who later retired as Chief Secretary of Punjab, the High Court upheld the discharge order on the ground that the State government lacked authority to grant prosecution sanction, but directed that the matter be placed before the Central Government — the competent authority — for a fresh decision.

In former Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda’s matter, Justice Grewal gave a dissenting opinion on the operative direction regarding the Dhingra Commission’s report. While the other Judge had held that the commission could continue proceedings from the stage of issuing notice, Justice Grewal termed this impractical.

He was of the view that the commission had already completed its tenure and submitted its final report, and therefore ceased to exist. The report deserved to be quashed, leaving it open to the State to appoint a fresh commission if it so wished.

His concern for institutional integrity also surfaced in a case involving police discipline, where the court directed that officers facing charges or conviction in offences involving moral turpitude should not be posted to positions involving public dealing or investigation.

The Bar members said Justice Grewal, through these decisions, consistently underscored that constitutional courts must interpret the law in a manner that advances dignity, fairness, and the rights of ordinary citizens.