Bench Change Can't Be Sought As A Matter Of Right After Roster Change: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that a litigant cannot claim a change of Bench as a matter of right merely because of a change in the roster, noting that the decision to release a part-heard matter depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the allocation of cases to Benches falls within the administrative prerogative of the Chief Justice, and whether a part-heard matter should continue before the same Bench or be released must be decided after considering factors such as the stage of the proceedings and the judicial time already invested in the matter.

“The choice of the Bench before which a matter is to be heard cannot be left to the preference of a litigant,” the Court observed.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by one Shishir Chand seeking release of his criminal miscellaneous petition from a particular Bench following a change in the roster of the High Court.

Justice Sharma noted that the matter had already been part-heard and that substantial judicial time had been devoted to it.

Chand had sought release of the case after the fresh roster came into effect on July 01, relying on the release of certain other criminal matters by the Court.

The Court observed that the release of other matters could not, by itself, create a right in favour of Chand to seek an identical order, as the circumstances, stage of hearing and procedural history of each case could differ.

“The choice of the Bench before which a matter is to be heard cannot be left to the preference of a litigant,” the Court said.

It added that the independence and orderly functioning of the judicial process require judicial business to remain governed by the applicable institutional arrangements and orders of the Court.

The observations came in the context of allegations raised by advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, who had earlier represented Chand in certain proceedings.

Dehadrai opposed the plea and sought to place additional documents on record, including social media posts attributed to Chand containing allegations against sitting and former judges of the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court.

The Court said that litigants cannot seek a change of Bench by raising allegations against the judiciary, cautioning that the process of seeking release of a matter cannot be used to secure a forum perceived to be more favourable.

“It is necessary, nevertheless, to draw a distinction between criticism of a judicial order and a personal attack upon the Judge who has passed any order. A litigant is entitled to question an order, challenge its reasoning, and pursue the remedies available in law,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.

“Such criticism, even if strongly worded, cannot merely on account of its adverse nature be equated with an attack upon the Judge or the institution. However, bald allegations attributing corruption, collusion, deliberate manipulation or improper motives to individual Judges stand on a different footing, particularly where such allegations are repeatedly made without any material whatsoever,” the Court said.

It added that the allegations, however, cannot either compel release of a matter or constitute a ground for selecting the Bench before which the matter is to be heard.

The Court noted that some of the posts questioned the integrity of judicial officers, attributed improper motives to judicial decisions and alleged manipulation in the constitution of Benches.

Distinguishing criticism of judicial orders from personal attacks on judges, the Court observed that a litigant is entitled to question an order, challenge its reasoning and pursue remedies available in law. However, it said that unsubstantiated allegations attributing corruption, collusion, deliberate manipulation or improper motives to individual judges stand on a different footing.

The Court allowed Dehadrai's request to place the additional documents on record but declined to initiate contempt proceedings against Chand at this stage.

It clarified that no finding was being returned on whether any individual social media post constituted criminal contempt.

Considering the overall circumstances, the Court released the matter from the part-heard category and directed that it be listed before the concerned roster Bench, subject to the orders of the Chief Justice, on October 14.

The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the underlying criminal case or the truth of the rival allegations.