Three judges transferred from Punjab and Haryana High Court
The orders, issued under clause (1) of Article 222 of the Constitution of India and dated July 14, 2025, come after consultation with the Chief Justice of India.
According to the official notifications, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma has been transferred to the Rajasthan High Court. A sitting judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Sharma has been directed to assume charge of his new post in Jodhpur immediately.
Justice Anil Kshetarpal, also serving at the Punjab and Haryana High Court, has been moved to the Delhi High Court. The notification directs him to take charge at the Delhi High Court, and requisite communication has been issued to the Chief Justice and administrative departments of all concerned states and union territories.
Justice Sudhir Singh has been transferred to the Patna High Court. He too has been instructed to assume charge without delay. His transfer marks his return to the Patna bench, aligning with judicial administrative practices of rotating judges across jurisdictions.
These transfers are part of the ongoing administrative reshuffle aimed at improving the functioning and balance of workload among the High Courts. All three notifications were signed by Jagannad K. Srinivasan, Joint Secretary, Department of Justice, Government of India.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
Fact Check: Video from Colombia VIRAL as Muslims attacking 'Udaipur Files' artist
A video of a group of people setting a building's entrance on fire has gone viral on social media with the claim that Muslims burned the house of an artist from the controversial upcoming film 'Udaipur Files'. Allegedly, Muslims are opposing the movie, saying it should not be released. The archive of the video can be viewed here. 'Udaipur Files' is reportedly based on the 2022 murder of Kanhaiya Lal Teli, who was hacked to death by Mohammad Riyaz and Ghouse Mohammad in Udaipur over a social media post supporting former Bharatiya Janata Party spokesperson Nupur Sharma. The Delhi High Court on July 10 paused the release of the film after a petition sought a permanent ban on the film, arguing that it targets Muslims and could incite communal tensions. The Delhi High Court order has been challenged in the Supreme Today Fact Check found that this video is from Colombia and shows people setting a police station on Probe Using a reverse image search, we found the viral video in social media posts from early July that said the police in Uribia city of Colombia mistakenly killed a young man named Yulbert Barboza after they mistook him for a suspect. The death enraged his community, who attacked and burned the Nazareth police station where he was killed.#ATENTOS. Comunidad de Nazareth, mpio/Uribia (Alta Guajira), ech candela a estacin de Polica luego de que uniformados, en un presunto error, asesnaran de Yulbert Barboza, un joven que conduca camioneta parecida a otra usada horas antes en ataque contra Fuerza Pblica. Colombia Oscura (@ColombiaOscura_) July 5, 2025Many Colombian news outlets covered the incident. Caracol Radio, a leading radio network in the country, reported on July 5 that some unknown men travelling in a pickup truck fired on a police station. Hours later, Barboza's car reportedly skidded near the same police station. Without verifying, police fired on Barbozas' vehicle, thinking it was another attack on was seriously injured and later died. After his death, riots broke out in the region, during which protestors set the police station on it is clear that the incident has nothing to do with the film 'Udaipur Files'.- EndsTrending Reel Want to send us something for verification? Please share it on our at 73 7000 7000 You can also send us an email at factcheck@
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Prison authorities can decide on furlough requests of convicts whose appeals are pending in Supreme Court: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court Tuesday ruled that prison authorities can decide on parole or furlough requests of convicts whose appeals are pending in the Supreme Court. The court was hearing a challenge to Delhi's prison rules by convicts in the 1987 Hashimpura massacre. The convicts had specifically challenged Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018, after their requests for furlough were denied by jail authorities earlier. The said provision reads: 'If an appeal of a convict is pending before the High Court or the period for filing an appeal before the High Court has not expired, furlough will not be granted and it would be open to the convict to seek appropriate directions from the Court.' Justices Prathiba Singh and Amit Sharma reasoned, 'The fact that 'Supreme Court' had not been incorporated in Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Prison Rules is further fortified from the fact that various other provisions in the Prison Rules have referred to 'Supreme Court' in various circumstances, and therefore, non-mentioning of 'Supreme Court' in the Note 2 to Rule 1224 of the Prison Rules cannot be considered as an omission. The intention of the Competent Authority while drafting the Rules is clear from the plain language itself that what was restricted was grant of parole/furlough to convicts whose appeals are pending adjudication before the High Court and not Hon'ble Supreme Court.' The division bench further held that 'since mere pendency of Criminal Appeal/Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be taken as a bar for release on furlough, each case would be determined on its own eligibility criteria as per Rules by the Competent Authority and the same would be subject to judicial the High Court'. It added that the prison rule provision cannot be interpreted to consider a bar on either the convicts' right to apply for furlough if their appeal is pending before the Supreme Court. During the 1987 Hashimpura massacre in Uttar Pradesh's Meerut, the accused, who were posted for riot control following communal riots, rounded up around 42-45 Muslim men and took them away in a truck. They were later shot, and the bodies were dumped in the Gang Nahar and Hindon canal. Of the 38 who were killed, the bodies of only 11 were identified by families. The remaining bodies were not recovered. In 2018, a division bench of the Delhi High Court, headed by Justice S Muralidhar, reversed the 2015 acquittal of 16 former members of the Uttar Pradesh Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) in the Hashimpura massacre case, and held them guilty of murder, criminal conspiracy, kidnapping, and causing disappearance of evidence. The convicts were sentenced to life imprisonment. The Delhi High Court also set aside a single judge's interpretation in an order in July 2023, which had held that the 'high court' in the above provision implies any appellate court, which would then include the Delhi High Court as well as the Supreme Court. The convicts, whose criminal appeals are pending before the Supreme Court, had challenged the rejection of their furlough request by the prison authorities. The latest court ruling means that the high court can now hear their petitions seeking a review of the prison authorities' rejection. The division bench in its order held, 'To impose a bar on consideration of parole/furlough if a Special Leave Petition or Appeal is pending in the Supreme Court could have completely unpredictable consequences and could also result in practical difficulties for convicts who may require to be granted parole/furlough due to emergent situations.' 'It cannot be expected that every convict would have to compulsorily approach the Supreme Court for temporary release or emergent release in grave situations, including medical exigencies of the convict, demise in the family, any emergency involving children of the convict, etc… The Delhi Prison Rules are categorical and clear that Rule 1224 bars parole/furlough being granted only if the appeal is pending in the High Court. This bar cannot be extended to the Supreme Court by way of judicial interpretation when the language does not read as such,' the order added.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Delhi High Court denies bail to TRF accused Arsalan Ahenger
The Delhi High Court has declined to grant bail to an alleged operative of The Resistance Front (TRF) terror outfit, citing his 'influence' and a high possibility of tampering with evidence. The court found sufficient material against the accused, Arsalan Feroze Ahenger, stated to be in his early twenties, observing that he posted photos of terrorists and incited people to commit terrorist acts. 'It cannot be said that there is no evidence against the appellant [Mr. Ahenger] that he was closely associated with slain terrorist Mehran Yaseen Shalla or that he has actively participated in the terrorist activities himself,' the court said in its order dated July 7. The court, accordingly, dismissed his appeal against a trial court order from September 2024 that had also denied him bail in the case. Mr. Ahenger was arrested on December 30, 2021. The National Investigation Agency has alleged that, in the backdrop of the abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution, conspiracies were being hatched by various terrorist organisations like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and TRF for targeted attacks on minorities, security forces, political leaders, and other key individuals. Some of these conspiracies were allegedly planned and executed to create unrest, instability, and fear in the Kashmir region and other parts of the country, the agency has said. Mr. Ahenger is alleged to have been associated with Mehran Yaseen Shalla, a TRF/LeT operative who, along with two others, was killed in an encounter on November 24, 2021. Under Shalla's influence, the agency has claimed, Mr. Ahenger became digitally active on various social media platforms, where radical content was disseminated. He is also alleged to have created certain social media groups such as Ansar Gazwat-ul-Hind and Shaikoo Naikoo, and multiple Gmail IDs through which radical views were expressed, thereby motivating and radicalising vulnerable youth to join terrorist groups like TRF.
