Five judge changes and lawyers "destroying the Bar": The saga of trial judge bribery case in Punjab & Haryana HC

A petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court to quash a bribery case involving a trial court judge has been heard by 5 different judges of the High Court since 2023..Four of these changes have been since January this year.Chief Justice Sheel Nagu on May 10 withdrew the petition filed by M3M Group Director Roop Bansal, one of the accused in the bribery case, from Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu following certain complaints, and decided to hear the plea himself.The nature of the complaint is not known. Justice Nagu, as the master of the roster, took the decision even after Justice Sindhu had reserved the plea for judgment, reflecting the seriousness of the matter.On Monday, Justice Nagu even hinted at bench hunting in the matter when he said that a particular lawyer was taken as the filing counsel only to get the case de-listed from a particular judge. Since 2023, a slew of senior lawyers have appeared in the matter..The controversy has its origins in the criminal case registered by the Anti- Corruption Bureau (ACB) in 2023 accusing judicial officer Sudhir Parmar (Special Judge CBI/PMLA) of extending undue favours to owners of M3M and IREO Group in a money laundering case.Parmar was suspended after registration of the case. As per the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which has filed a separate complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering (PMLA) against the accused, Parmar had received illegal gratification to the tune of ₹5 to 7 crore from owners/promoters of IREO Group and M3M Group. Bansal moved the High Court in October 2023 to quash the FIR but withdrew the plea in January 2025. He then filed a fresh plea which was reserved for decision within 10 days of first hearing. Bar & Bench took a closer look at the records of these two petitions and found a disturbing pattern..The case in the first round was initially listed before Justice Anoop Chitkara between October 2023 and September 2024. Senior Advocates Randeep Singh Rai and Vikram Chaudhri represented Bansal in the petition filed through Advocate Kunal Dawar.Due to a sudden roster change in September 2024, the case went to Justice NS Shekhawat. Before him, the case was listed thrice. He recused on the third date (January 14, 2025), which meant that the matter went to Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul. Before her, the matter was listed only twice. On January 22, Bansal's counsel sought adjournment. Then on February 13, he sought withdrawal of the plea, which was allowed. Interestingly, the 2023 plea was withdrawn after many hearings before Justice Chitkara, so that the accused could file a better one."Learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present petition, with liberty to file afresh with better particularly. Dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty aforesaid," Justice Kaul ordered..The second petition by Bansal came to be filed last month. In accordance with the roster, the case was to be listed before Justice Kaul again. However, the case filed through Advocate JK Singla could not be listed before Justice Kaul as his cases generally are not listed before her. The reason for this is not known, but judges often refrain from hearing cases involving certain lawyers who may be personally known to them or have previously worked with them. Sometimes, judges may also choose not to hear cases filed by lawyers due to misbehavior or professional misconduct.The case then went before Justice Sindhu. The judge took up the case on priority, hearing it between April 24 and May 2. He issued notice on the first date of hearing and also called for the original records of the case.On April 29, the State counsel sought time to file written response. On May 2, the ED was made a formal party to the case after Bansal's counsel gave no objection to the agency assisting the Court as an intervenor.The judgment was reserved on the same day as the State's reply was taken on record. This time, Senior Advocates Puneet Bali and Rakesh Nehra represented Bansal..However, soon thereafter, Chief Justice Nagu received certain complaints and decided to de-allocate the case from Justice Sindhu's pronouncement list. On May 12, Justice Nagu, sitting singly, heard the quashing petition. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, along with Bali and Nehra, represented the accused. They objected to Chief Justice Nagu taking up the case, since the matter was heard, reserved and listed for pronouncement by Justice Sindhu. In a detailed order delivered last week, Chief Justice Nagu rejected the objection and listed the case for hearing on May 26..On May 26, a counsel appearing for Bansal sought adjournment in the matter, citing unavailability of the arguing counsel. He said that Bali was to appear in the matter but was abroad at present. It was also submitted that advocate Vijay Aggarwal will also appear in the matter, but he has to undergo surgery "in the morning" and has been admitted to hospitalThe request was opposed by ED counsel Zoheb Hossain, who said that the petitioner's side had earlier shown a "tearing hurry" to argue the case.Chief Justice Nagu then asked for the presence of Singla, who is the filing counsel in the case. After the ED revealed that he has never appeared in the matter, Justice Nagu said,"Where is Mr JK Singla (filing counsel)? We will hear him only. Please ask him to come and argue the matter. We will not hear anybody else, neither Mr. Bali or anybody else. Call Mr JK Singla whose power 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 at the Bar. You are destroying the Bar virtually."The Court was apparently referring to the reason why the plea could not be listed before Justice Kaul, who is the roster judge for PC Act cases at present..After some time, counsel representing Bansal submitted that they were unable to contact Singla.In the order passed on Monday, the Court described the request for adjournment as unfortunate, given that the matter has been listed before a special bench and after he took time from hearing division bench matters."Let the matter be taken up tomorrow i.e. 27.05.2025 at 09.30 A.M. for being argued by any of the authorized counsel whose signatures are appended with Power of Attorney," the Court ordered..[Read Order]