T HE Chief Justice Sheel Nagu has rejected the preliminary objection raised to the jurisdiction of a Single Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, on May 23, 2025 by the senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi appearing with Advocates Puneet Bali and Rakesh Nehra seeking quashing of FIR. The Chief Justice took emergent step by withdrawing the instant case, which was heard and reserved for pronouncement of judgement and listed the same before a newly constituted Single Judge Bench comprising the Chief Justice for rehearing. The CJ with a view to preserve the dignity and honour of the institution and so also the public trust, took the emergent step. From a closer scrutiny of the ratio of various judgements relied upon and having gone through the Rules and Orders of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the CJ found that there is no express or implied bar for the CJ to withdraw any case, which is heard and reserved for judgement by any particular Bench and list the withdrawn case before any other Single Bench comprising any other Judge or the CJ. Powers of Chief Justice as Master of the Roster are wide, pervading and plenary.

 

These powers are circumscribed by only one consideration, that is, 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 CJ 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. This petition has been filed under section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 for quashing of a FIR of April 17, 2025 alleging offences punishable under sections 7,8,11 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120-B of the IPC, registered at AntiCorruption Bureau, Panchkula, Hayana against 3 named and some unnamed accused including the petitioner with further prayer to stay the proceedings emanating from the said FIR.

 

The reason for withdrawing this case, from the Single Bench Roster of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu was the receipt of complaint (oral as well as written) which impelled the CJ to requisition the record of this case from the said Single Bench and constitute another Single Bench comprising the CJ himself on May 12, 2025 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 expeditiously as possible. In the attending factual scenario, if the CJ has not taken preventive emergent steps, then the CJ would be failing in his duty and belying the oath taken by him. The only course available to the CJ in the limited reaction time, was to withdraw the “heard and reserved” case from the Single Bench of Justice Sindhu to be listed before another Single Bench. The object sought to be achieved was to prevent possible damage to the reputation of the institution.

 

The administrative power available to the CJ 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. The object is to ensure administration of justice by allocating cases of different nature to available Benches to achieve the ultimate goal of fair and speedy justice to the litigants. For achieving this objective, the CJ performs the ancillary function of looking into written or oral complaints against any particular Bench. This function is discharged by subjective assessment based upon objective material in hand, which may be in shape of written or oral complaint. Occasionally, such complaints are received at the 11th hour (as in the present case), when the reaction time with the Chief Justice is limited.

 

Thus, the CJ 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 overall reputation of the institution and public trust of people at large in the judicial system. In this piquant situation, if the CJ chooses the latter, then in the Judge’s humble and consideredopinion the CJ stands by his oathand public trust. It has been contended by thesenior counsel for the petitioner,relying upon the SC decision inthe case- Shanti Bhushan v.Supreme Court of India throughits Registrar and another-(2018)8SCC 396 that power of the CJ doesnot extend to regulate judicialfunctioning of a particular Benchsince the Bench by mere fact ofassignment of roster or administrative order acquires completedominion over the assigned case.It is no disputed that the ChiefJustice is the master of the roster,but once assignment of case ismade by the CJ to a particularBench by way of roster or byadministrative order, then thatcase falls within the exclusivedomain of the assigned Bench tillits decision except where theRoster is changed or the CJ allotsthat particular case to some other Bench.

 

At this juncture thecounsel for the petitioner pointed out that when a case is heardand reserved for pronouncementof final order , the Chief Justice(CJ) stands denuded of any suchpower of assigning the case to anyother Bench. In this decision, as regards thepowers of Chief Justice, it was alsoobserved that though on theadministrative side, control of theHC vests in the CJ alone, on thejudicial side, however, he is onlythe first amongst the equals. The HC has voiced its considered view that the objection raisedby the senior counsel on behalfof the petitioner “deserved to beand is rejected”.