Chief Justice Withdraws Corruption Case Amid Allegations of Bench-Hunting

On May 23, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu of the Punjab & Haryana High Court withdrew a corruption case from a single judge and assigned it to his own bench, following receipt of oral and written complaints. The decision has raised eyebrows and sparked speculation about potential bench-hunting.

BenchhuntingCorruptionPunjab And Haryana High CourtChief Justice Sheel NaguJk SinglaReal EstateMay 29, 2025

Chief Justice Withdraws Corruption Case Amid Allegations of Bench-Hunting

Real Estate:On May 23, through an 11-page order, Punjab and Haryana Chief Justice Sheel Nagu withdrew a corruption case involving a District and Sessions judge, a prominent real estate company, and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from a single judge of the same high court and assigned the matter for hearing to his own bench. This decision has raised eyebrows and led to a lot of speculation, especially given the receipt of “oral and written complaints” that led to the withdrawal of the matter from Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, even though the judgment had been reserved.

Justice Sindhu, known for being a tough, pro-liberty judge, enjoys a good reputation in legal circles. However, the case, murky from the very initial stages, has become even more obscure due to subsequent developments, many of which leave little to imagination and too many coincidences, most of which seem to favor the accused.

One of the key figures in this case is advocate JK Singla, whose role has left many questions unanswered. Singla, who was brought into the case on paper, conveniently disappeared, raising serious concerns. According to sources, the case was listed before Justice Sindhu through a well-thought-out plan, aimed at ensuring that the case was not decided by the bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul.

In mid-2023, a promoter of the real estate firm M3M Group, Roop Bansal, was arrested by the ED in a money laundering case. Another name that emerged during the investigation was that of now-suspended Haryana Judicial Services officer Sudhir Parmar, then posted as a CBI Special Judge in Panchkula, who was allegedly involved in favoring Roop Bansal and his kin, as well as Lalit Goyal, owner of another prominent real estate firm, IREO Group.

Internal High Court notings suggest that bench-hunting, including by fielding lawyers whose appearance before particular judges known for their integrity and no-nonsense approach forced the judges to recuse from the matter, was a much-abused tactic of the accused. A group of lawyers, including some senior advocates, allegedly misused the process to get relief for their moneyed clients.

The complaint that reached the Chief Justice’s desk on May 5, three days after Justice Sindhu had reserved his judgment, alleged “blatant misuse of power and law” prevalent in the High Court. The complaint suggested that the matter was listed before Justice Sindhu through a well-executed plan to ensure it was not decided by the bench of Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul.

According to the current roster of the High Court, which came into effect on March 3, all Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cases in which FIR/complaints have been filed in the State of Haryana and any other connected matters were being listed before the bench of Justice N.S. Shekhawat. However, before the current case, the same petitioner had filed a similar quashing petition, which was listed before the bench of Justice Shekhawat. On January 14, Justice Shekhawat ordered, “Let this matter be placed before some other Hon’ble Bench after soliciting appropriate orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice.”

On February 13, the case was then listed before the bench of Justice Nehru Kaul. Then it took a strange turn. The petitioner’s lawyer sought permission from the court to “withdraw the present petition, with liberty to file afresh with better particulars.” Among the four lawyers mentioned in the order, there was no one named advocate JK Singla, the lawyer at the center of the latest controversy.

Roop Bansal then filed a fresh petition with the same plea through advocates JK Singla and others. Interestingly, cases filed by Singla and the other lawyers for Bansal were not listed before some particular judges, including Justice Nehru Kaul. At the first hearing, after no one appeared for the petitioner, including Singla, the judge posted the matter for the next day “purely in the interest of justice.”

On April 19, following an order given by the Chief Justice, who was clearly unaware of the game plan, the matter was posted before the bench of Justice Sindhu. At the first hearing, after no one appeared for the petitioner, including Singla, the judge posted the matter for the next day “purely in the interest of justice.”

On April 24, the court issued notice of motion, with the judge directing that the needful – filing a response on behalf of the respondents – “be done on or before the next date.” The matter was ordered to be posted on April 29 under the “urgent list.” Incidentally, while senior advocate Puneet Bali appeared for the petitioner along with advocates Anmol Chandan, Siddharth Bhardwaj, and Gagandeep Singh, advocate Singla, the reason the matter finally came to be posted before Justice Sindhu, was conspicuous by his absence.

On April 29, the respondents, in compliance with the previous order, produced the original record, which was “perused and returned to learned State counsel.” The judge ordered that the “same be brought on the next date of hearing as well.” After the counsel for the State of Haryana sought time to file a written response in the matter, the matter was adjourned for May 2 under the urgent list. Not surprisingly, even on this date, advocate Singla was missing from the court.

On May 2, after hearing the matter, Justice Sindhu reserved the main case, while disposing of the miscellaneous application. Once again, advocate Singla was not named among the advocates appearing in the case. The petitioner’s case was argued by senior advocates Puneet Bali and Rakesh Nehra. But before the judgment could be pronounced, the written complaint landed on the table of Chief Justice Nagu, who ordered that the case be withdrawn from Justice Sindhu, to be heard by the Chief Justice himself.

On May 12, when the Chief Justice Nagu’s bench began hearing the case, a battery of lawyers, including former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, objected to his decision to withdraw the case from the other bench. Rohatgi, Bali, and Nehra asserted that the Chief Justice “cannot hear a case which was heard, reserved, and listed for pronouncement of final order by another Single Bench.” However, the Chief Justice, in his May 23 order, rejected their contentions and noted that “the only course available to the Chief Justice in the limited reaction time was to withdraw the heard and reserved case from the Single Bench of Justice Mahabir Singh 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,” CJ Nagu ruled. In an earlier part of the order, the chief justice said that “the reason for withdrawing this case from the Single Bench Criminal Roster of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu was the receipt of complaint, (oral as well as written), which impelled the Chief Justice to requisition the record of this case from the said Single Bench and constitute another Single Bench comprising of Chief Justice.”

This, he added, was done “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 as expeditiously as possible.”

On May 26, when the case was taken up by the bench of Chief Justice Nagu, none of the seniors were present. After the counsel for the petitioner sought an adjournment on the plea that the seniors, who would argue the matter, were not available, a visibly upset CJ gave a severe tongue-lashing to the counsel, at one point wondering where JK Singla was.

“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, as per a news report.

However, while Singla was nowhere to be found, when the case came up for hearing today, it was neither senior advocate Puneet Bali nor senior advocate Vijay Aggarwal who prayed for an adjournment. The advocate who appeared said that Aggarwal had fallen ill in the morning while Bali was out of the country.

A senior advocate in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, speaking to The Leaflet, stated that it was apparent that a “cabal was at work.” “How else does one explain the strange coincidences, if they can be termed so, surrounding the case? The chief justice should order an inquiry into who all were involved,” they said. The senior counsel also said that an independent inquiry should be ordered to find out how advocate Singla entered the matter and then simply disappeared. “Singla couldn’t have been acting alone. Others who had propped him up also need to be exposed,” they said.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is bench-hunting in the context of the legal system?

Bench-hunting refers to the practice of strategically selecting or influencing the assignment of a case to a particular judge who is perceived to be favorable to one's interests. This can involve using various tactics, such as fielding specific lawyers or making strategic legal maneuvers, to ensure the case is heard by a desired judge.

Why did Chief Justice Sheel Nagu withdraw the corruption case from Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu?

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu withdrew the corruption case from Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu following the receipt of oral and written complaints. These complaints alleged blatant misuse of power and law, suggesting that the case was listed before Justice Sindhu through a well-thought-out plan to avoid a different judge.

Who is advocate JK Singla and what is his role in the case?

Advocate JK Singla is a key figure in the case, whose role has left many questions unanswered. He was brought into the case on paper but disappeared from the proceedings, raising serious concerns about his involvement and the tactics used to influence the case's assignment.

What were the key developments in the case before it was withdrawn from Justice Sindhu?

The case involved multiple strategic maneuvers, including the withdrawal and re-filing of petitions, and the conspicuous absence of advocate JK Singla. These developments suggested a well-planned effort to influence the assignment of the case to a specific judge.

What steps did Chief Justice Nagu take to address the complaints and concerns?

Chief Justice Nagu withdrew the case from Justice Sindhu and assigned it to his own bench to prevent possible damage to the reputation of the institution. He also demanded the appearance of advocate JK Singla to address the ethical concerns raised in the case.