Public Faith In Judiciary Will Be Weakened: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Answer Reference, Calls It 'Coram Non Judice'

The Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to answer a reference question placed before it, observing that that the single judge prima facie breached the "norm of propriety governing judicial functionings" and called itself as "coram non judice".The single judge while differring with the opinion of the co-ordinate bench had referred the matter to decide whether the mechanism followed by the Punjab Government to examine the sample of alleged defective work for construction of a road is "legally sound".Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma said, "the Benches of this Court are under a Constitutional obligation to adhere to the principles of propriety. The norm of propriety governing judicial functionings, thus becomes underpinned in the niche, that an unreversed verdict pronounced by a learned Single Bench of this Court, thus acquires binding and conclusive effect, whereupons, such a binding decision but is to be adhered to or is required to be meted deference by a subsequent Coordinate Bench of this Court."The bench opined that instead of sending the matter for reference, the single judge should have enforced the earlier judgement of the another single judge as it was binding and conclusive.It added further that "the departures from the norm of propriety as becomes underpinned in the...rule, does not augur well for the prosperity and growth of this exalted institution, as therebys the immensity of public faith reposed in the judicial dispensation system, as created under the Constitution of India, but naturally gets weakened besides gets eroded."Proceeding Before Single JudgeThe single judge was examining the mechanism of sample collection adopted by Public Works Department of Punjab Government. A road construction work was found defective by the department after conducting the tests and chargesheet was issued. The Court noted that apart from referring the legal provisions for collection of sample, its sealing by the Members of team as well as sending the same to laboratory for examination, the entire exercise was demonstrated in the open Court.It opined that prima facie that mechanism provided by the State or collection of sample, its sealing and sending the same to laboratory for examination "is robust as well as flawless."However, the judge noted that a Co-ordinate Bench while deciding similar controversy opined that "procedure seriously compromises the sanctity and the purity of the sample that had been so obtained."To resolve the issue, the single judge referred the matter to larger bench in order to decide whether the mechanism is "legally sound for the desired purpose."Observation Of Division Bench After perusing the matter, the division bench said that the single judges while examining the mechanism "prima facie assumed also the role of an enquiry officer.""Since prima facie the workability of the (supra) evolved mechanism for making, thus was respectively done by the learned Single Benches of this Court and that too in theirs exercising original writ jurisdiction. Thereupon, in the said exercise of original jurisdiction, both assumed onto themselves the role of an enquiry officer besides assumed onto themselves the role of examining the credibility of the results of the apposite laboratory examinations," the Court added.It opined that the judge, while exercising original writ jurisdiction, assumed the role of a trial judge and enquiry officer.The bench added that the enquiry officer alone is empowered to adjudicate the "credibility of the results of the examination" and he can only decide whether the "the results of the examinations are faultless or are flawed on any ground whatsoever."While refusing to answer the reference, the Court said it is "coram non judice, as any affirmative or dis-affirmative order answer provided thereto, would ultimately impign upon the jurisdiction of the enquiry officer, rather to determine whether the results of the examination made over the collected samples, thus are faultless or are flawed."Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Navjot Singh, AdvocateMr. Shashank Shekhar Sharma, AdvocateMs. Triyyambika, Advocate for the petitioner(s).Mr. Maninder Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.Title: Nabhdeep Bansal v. State of Punjab and Anr [with other connected matters]Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 15Click here to read/download the order

Public Faith In Judiciary Will Be Weakened: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses To Answer Reference, Calls It 'Coram Non Judice'

Aiman J. Chishti

Tags