Reassigned Case: Chief Justice Nagu hints at ‘bench shopping’, says Bar being ‘destroyed’

Earlier, the courtroom proceedings began with an advocate from the office of Senior Advocate Vijay Aggarwal praying for adjournment. The advocate submitted that Aggarwal had fallen ill in the morning and undergone a hernia surgery due to which he was unable to argue while Senior Advocate Puneet Bali was out of the country.

Chief Justice Nagu noted that the special bench had been created pursuant to the order passed by the court on May 23, in which he had dismissed a challenge against his decision to reassign the corruption matter and underlined the Chief Justice’s administrative control over court rosters and authority to reassign judicial work.

Appearing virtually, Zoheb Hossain, counsel for Enforcement Directorate, objected to the adjournment request. “Was this person who is not well…was he appearing on the last date or not? Because it can’t be, My Lord, that new counsel are brought in who are not well, and adjournment is sought when, on the contrary, tearing hurry was being shown in this matter earlier”.

At one point, Chief Justice Nagu directed the petitioner’s team to summon Advocate JK Singla, who had earlier filed a fresh petition in the case.

“Where is Mr JK Singla? We will hear him only. Please ask him to come and argue the matter. Call Mr JK Singla whose power (of attorney) was filed just to get the case out of a particular Bench. This is the kind of professional ethics you are showing…You are encouraging people just to not make any effort…You are destroying the Bar virtually,” Chief Justice Nagu observed.

Hossain also countered the petitioner’s arguments on merit. He said Roop Bansal could not invoke protection under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as it applied only to public servants. “Bansal is a businessman,” Hossain said, adding that the only other ground raised was that telephone conversations, which are being used, have been extracted without proper authority of law, and that these could not form the basis of the FIR. Hossain cited a Supreme Court ruling to highlight that these could still be used as information for filing an FIR.

Additional Advocate General for Haryana, Deepal Balyan, submitted that the original record was in court custody and the investigating officer, a DSP in the state Anti-Corruption Bureau, was present. The court directed Balyan to retain the record and relieved the officer.

The case

The case — Roop Bansal vs State of Haryana and others — seeks to quash an FIR dated April 17, 2023, lodged by the Haryana anti-corruption branch against M3M director Roop Bansal, former CBI special judge Sudhir Parmar, and latter’s nephew Ajay Parmar.

The matter has had a turbulent procedural history. Initially filed in January 2025, it was listed before Justice NS Shekhawat, who recused himself on January 14. The case was then withdrawn from before the bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul on February 13. A fresh petition was filed on April 7 by Advocate JK Singla — whose cases are not listed before Justice Kaul — and was then marked to Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu.

After arguments concluded and the verdict was reserved on May 2, Chief Justice Nagu reassigned the matter to himself on May 10.

The petitioner’s lawyers, including senior advocates Mukul Rohtagi and Puneet Bali had strongly objected to this, arguing 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”.

On May 23, dismissing objections to his decision, Chief Justice Nagu asserted that ‟Chief Justice’s powers” as master of the roster were “wide, pervading and plenary,” exercised to “protect the interest of the institution from being tarnished and to uphold the public trust reposed in judiciary by litigants.”

He further said the reassignment was to “draw curtains to the controversy and save the institution and the concerned judge from any further embarrassment.”