Punjab and Haryana HC Chief Justice Sheel Nagu recuses from hearing M3M director Roop Bansal’s case

The case was recently listed before the Chief Justice’s bench after he had withdrawn it from a single judge who had reserved the verdict.

During the latest hearing on Thursday, the Chief Justice himself asked Bansal’s counsel whether there was any objection to him hearing the case. “The Chief Justice has dealt with it on administrative side wherein it has withdrawn the case from particular bench… hearing the case on judicial side… whether the principle that, justice should not only be done but seen to be done is breached?” he remarked.

Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi said he had instructions to raise objections on these grounds.

In response, the Chief Justice ordered the matter to be placed before the administrative side to be marked to a different bench.

Senior Counsel Zoheb Hossain, representing the Enforcement Directorate, argued that administrative actions by the Chief Justice should not impact the judicial process. “What the office of Chief Justice does on administrative side never comes on its way of judicial side,” he submitted.

Singhvi, however, responded, “It is our duty to advise the court on principle. There are innumerable examples where Chief Justice of India has refused to deal with the case on judicial side when it has dealt with it on administrative side… Best example is also administrative judges who never deal with the cases which they have dealt on administrative duty.”

In view of the objections, Chief Justice Nagu opted to recuse and have the case listed before another bench.

The matter has seen a turbulent procedural trajectory. Initially filed in January 2025, the petition was first listed before Justice N S Shekhawat, who recused himself on January 14. It was then taken up by Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, before whom the petitioner withdrew the plea on February 13. A fresh petition was moved on April 7 by Advocate J K Singla—whose matters are not listed before Justice Kaul—and was then marked to Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu.

After hearing arguments, Justice Sindhu reserved judgment on May 2. However, on May 10, Chief Justice Nagu withdrew the case from his bench, citing “oral and written” complaints.

The move drew strong objections from Bansal’s counsel, including senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Puneet Bali, who contended that “a matter which is heard and reserved by a Bench holding roster, cannot be withdrawn from that roster to be heard by any other Single Bench including that of the Chief Justice”.

In a detailed May 23 order, the Chief Justice dismissed the objections, asserting that his authority as master of the roster is “wide, pervading and plenary,” and that the transfer was made to “protect the interest of the institution from being tarnished and to uphold the public trust reposed in judiciary by litigants”.

He added that the case had been reassigned to “draw curtains to the controversy and save the institution and the concerned judge from any further embarrassment”.