Chief Justice can reassign even reserved cases to safeguard judicial integrity: HC
Emphasising the need to protect the judiciary’s reputation and maintain public trust, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today affirmed that the Chief Justice might withdraw any matter — including a case already heard and reserved — from one bench and place it before another.
The court ruled that there was no statutory or judicial restriction on such roster adjustments. The assertion came as Chief Justice Sheel Nagu rejected a challenge to the withdrawal and reassignment of a case initially heard and reserved by another bench.
The case has its genesis in a petition filed by Roop Bansal, seeking the quashing of an FIR registered on April 17 at Panchkula Anti-Corruption Bureau under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B of the IPC.
The matter stood heard and reserved by the single bench before it was transferred to a newly constituted bench presided over by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu. The receipt of complaint –– oral as well as written –– was cited as the reason, which impelled the Chief Justice to requisition the case record from the single bench and constitute another single bench comprising the Chief Justice 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.
Raising preliminary objections, the petitioner’s counsel contended that “the instant single bench cannot hear a case which was heard, reserved and listed for pronouncement of final order by another single bench.” They contended that the roster power should not extend to reassign a matter for rehearing, once a bench had heard and reserved the matter.
After hearing the arguments, the bench asserted the powers of Chief Justice in his capacity as master of the roster were wide, pervading and plenary. “These powers are circumscribed by only one consideration –– 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 untrammelled and immune from judicial scrutiny.”
The judgment also called attention to the urgency that prompted the Chief Justice’s intervention: “In the attending factual scenario, if the Chief Justice had not taken preventive emergent steps, 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. The object sought to be achieved was to prevent possible damage to the reputation of the institution.”
Further elucidating the roster power, Chief Justice Nagu noted that such administrative authority included within its ambit the power to assign and withdraw cases from any bench. The complaints arising “at the eleventh hour”, when the reaction time with the Chief Justice was limited, demanded immediate action.
“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,” Chief Justice Nagu concluded.
