Can a judge stay a reference order passed against his judgment? Question arises at Madhya Pradesh High Court

Controversy has arisen at the Madhya Pradesh High Court, after an order passed by the second senior-most judge of the Principal Bench at Jabalpur recently came under the spotlight..Justice Sanjay Yadav, who is also the administrative judge at the Jabalpur Bench, recently stayed a Single Judge Bench’s order calling for issues raised in one of his judgments to be referred to a larger Bench..This raised the question as to whether a judge whose order is being referred to a larger Bench can himself stay such a reference..In May this year, a Division Bench of Justices Sanjay Yadav and Vishal Dhagat stayed an order passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi in March this year..The March order that had referred a question of law to a larger Bench, pertained to the transfer of a police officer in conformity with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh and Ors vs Union of India and Ors..In this order, Justice Dwivedi expressed his inability to agree with the December 2019 judgment passed by the Bench of Justice Sanjay Yadav and Mohd Fahim Anwar stating that police officers of rank Sub-Divisional Officer of Police [SDO(P)] are not in operational duty and therefore the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court’s as regards bar on transfer for a period of two years would not be attracted..Justice Dwivedi had recorded the arguments made by the counsel before him which pointed out that SDO(P) is considered to have an investigation role under certain statutes such as the Prevention of Corruption Act as well as the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As such, SDO(P) officers cannot be said to not be in operational duty, it was held..The March order recorded that the view taken by the Division Bench headed by Justice Yadav needed reconsideration, and thus, the question needed to be placed before a larger Bench constituted by the Chief Justice. The reference order, therefore, read:.“Whether the view taken by the Division Bench in case of Devi Singh Thakur vs. S.N. Pathak and others (W.A. No.693/2019) holding that the SDO(P)/CSP/DSP are not on operational duties, therefore, the view taken by the Supreme Court in case of Prakash Singh (supra) would have no application for these police officers, is proper or not inasmuch as the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 would prevail over the Police Regulations and therefore these officers should be treated as on operational duties in field.”.On May 28, this reference order passed by Justice Dwivedi was stayed by a Bench headed by Justice Yadav..When the case in which the stay order was passed was subsequently taken up for hearing on June 16, the parties, including the State of Madhya Pradesh, sought time to file replies. The replies sought to be filed also pertain to the application filed for vacation of stay..Granting time to file replies, the Court fixed the next date of hearing in the matter for July 20..This is not the first time the conduct of Justice Yadav has come under the scanner. In November 2019, the Madhya Pradesh Bar had urged then Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, to transfer Justice Yadav outside Madhya Pradesh, citing continuous misbehaviour and clashes with the members of the Bar..Transfer Justice Sanjay Yadav out of State, Madhya Pradesh Bar writes to CJI [Read Resolution].A resolution to this effect dated September 5, 2019, was passed following a joint meeting of the High Court Bar Association, the District Bar Association, the Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Bar Association (MPHCABA), and the Senior Bar Council..Justice Yadav was the third senior most Judge at the Madhya Pradesh High Court at the time, and owing to the proposal for elevation of the two judges senior to him, he was in line to have been conferred the charge of the High Court..Apprehending this development, lawyers of the Madhya Pradesh Bar had passed a resolution expressing concerns that Justice Yadav’s likely posting at the Principal Bench may reinitiate friction between the Bar and the Bench..Read the Orders: