The Punjab and Haryana High Court has formally held that it lacks jurisdiction to transfer cases from one judge to another within the same High Court at the request of an advocate, highlighting that no statutory provision authorizes such transfers. The decision arose from a writ petition filed by a 37‑year‑old advocate, who sought to shift three cases assigned to a particular judge, alleging conflict of interest due to that judge’s involvement with the Bar Council during a period when she had faced harassment from its members. She also sought a direction preventing future assignment of cases to that judge’s court.
A division bench led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry examined the scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court explained that its writ powers are confined to reviewing actions of the State or its instrumentalities and directed applicants to avail alternative legal remedies like filing a letter patent appeal or approaching the Supreme Court if aggrieved by a judicial order. The bench held that simply filing a representation requesting a transfer to the Chief Justice does not confer any enforceable right, as no statutory provision empowers the High Court to reassign cases at the behest of litigants or advocates.
The court emphasized that the administrative control over roster and case assignment rests solely with the Chief Justice, who is recognized as “master of the roster.” No other judge or bench can unilaterally direct the Registry to list a case before them in contravention of the Chief Justice’s allocation. Judicial assignments must strictly follow internal administrative procedures, and any deviation—even on grounds such as bias, inconvenience, or professional conflict—is beyond the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.
Referencing Supreme Court precedents, the bench reiterated that only the Chief Justice may reassign cases and that other judges lack authority to reallocate judicial work. It stressed that inviting litigants to bypass this set-up by making representations to the Chief Justice undermines judicial administration and discipline. The bench firmly held that the exercise of roster powers cannot be interfered with by petitioners, as that would disrupt the institution’s functioning.
Given the circumstances, the High Court dismissed the petition, clarifying that the alleged conflict or professional discomfort does not constitute grounds for mandatory case transfer. The court found no legal justification to bar the judge from handling future matters in question. It held that the petition did not challenge any order of the State or its agencies, and instead sought judicial intervention in administrative processes—something not permitted under writ jurisdiction.
Through this ruling, the court reaffirmed that expectations of convenience, allegations of bias, or requests for transfer do not confer enforceable rights under Article 226. The only remedy available lies in formal appellate processes, not in administrative discretionary transfers. The bench’s judgment reinforces the inviolability of roster allocation and emphasizes that only the administrative head of the court may reassign cases—not the judiciary acting upon petitions from individual advocates.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.