A significant legal development unfolded in the Punjab and Haryana High Court when Chief Justice Sheel Nagu recused himself from hearing a plea filed by Roop Bansal, a director of the M3M Group, who sought to quash an FIR registered against him by the Haryana Anti-Corruption Bureau. The FIR alleges that Bansal was involved in a criminal conspiracy to offer a bribe to a judge of a trial court in Gurugram. The matter has since turned into a complex procedural and ethical debate within the High Court, highlighting broader concerns about judicial transparency and the integrity of case assignments.
Roop Bansal’s petition, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, challenged the legality of the FIR, which accused him under various sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and criminal conspiracy provisions of the Indian Penal Code. Since its filing, the case has passed through multiple benches — at least five — creating a perception of possible bench hunting. Initially heard by Justice Anoop Chitkara, the matter was then listed before Justice N.S. Shekhawat, who recused himself. It then went to Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, and later to Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu. Justice Sindhu reserved his judgment on the plea on May 2.
However, shortly before the judgment could be delivered, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu took the unusual step of withdrawing the matter from Justice Sindhu. This action was reportedly based on oral and written complaints that questioned the manner in which the petition was being handled and the pattern of its movement between benches. Citing his role as the master of the roster, the Chief Justice reassigned the case to himself, emphasizing that the administrative move was made to protect the reputation of the judiciary and the judge concerned. He further stated that this administrative decision should not be confused with judicial prejudice or bias.
When the case was taken up again, Roop Bansal’s legal team, led by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, objected to the reassignment of the case. Singhvi argued that once a bench had reserved judgment, the matter should not have been taken away from it. He also sought permission to withdraw the petition altogether. However, Chief Justice Nagu declined to allow the withdrawal, asserting that petitioners do not have an unfettered right to withdraw a plea after judicial intervention. He insisted that the matter should be argued on its merits rather than being allowed to be dropped at such a stage.
Singhvi presented several arguments in defense of his client. He contended that the trial court judge who was allegedly offered a bribe had no direct involvement in any cases linked to M3M or Roop Bansal at the time of the alleged conspiracy, thus challenging the factual foundation of the FIR. Additionally, the defense questioned the validity of the FIR itself, arguing that no prior sanction had been obtained as required under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act for prosecuting a public servant. Moreover, the defense questioned the role of the Enforcement Directorate in the matter, claiming that the case had originated from the Haryana Anti-Corruption Bureau and not the ED, thereby questioning its locus standi.
Despite these arguments, Chief Justice Nagu expressed deep concern about the manner in which the case had been handled. He openly criticized what appeared to be a strategy of attempting to influence the assignment of benches by filing or withdrawing petitions and changing counsel. The court observed that procedural maneuvers aimed at getting a favorable bench struck at the very core of judicial integrity and professionalism. The Chief Justice made it clear that the court would not tolerate any such attempts and was determined to ensure that justice was administered in a fair and transparent manner.
Ultimately, the court refused to permit the withdrawal of the petition. Instead, it directed that the case be heard on its substantive legal grounds. The court emphasized that any observations made during the hearings would not influence the outcome of the trial itself. The matter was adjourned for a later date, with instructions for a detailed hearing.
This case has become a flashpoint in the broader discourse around the ethical and administrative conduct of judicial institutions. Chief Justice Nagu’s decision to assert administrative control over the case, despite the controversies it invited, signals a strong stand in favor of institutional credibility. However, it also opens up a debate on the balance between administrative authority and judicial autonomy, particularly in high-profile and sensitive matters. The eventual resolution of Roop Bansal’s plea, and the manner in which the court addresses the allegations of procedural impropriety and bench-hunting, is likely to set important precedents in judicial conduct and the handling of corruption allegations involving influential individuals.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.