Punjab and Haryana HC rejects advocate's plea to shift cases from a judge over ‘conflict of interest'

Indian Express

7 hours ago

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday dismissed an advocate's petition to shift three of her ongoing cases from a particular judge's court, citing 'jurisdictional limitations'. The petition stemmed from the judge's involvement with the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana (BCPH) during a time when the advocate allegedly faced harassment from its members.
A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry ruled that it does not have the power to transfer cases to another bench within the high court or to another high court, adding that the advocate was free to explore other legal options.
The petitioner, a 37-year-old advocate from a Scheduled Caste background, had also asked for an order preventing her future cases from being listed before the same judge.
In her petition, the advocate described being sexually harassed by a district attorney in Gurgaon in 2022. She also stated that BCPH members barred her entry, adding that she had been targeted with false complaints, including one that resulted in a legal notice later quashed by the court. She argued that the judge's earlier association with the BCPH created a conflict of interest and violated the principle that 'nobody can be a judge in their own cause'.
The advocate further stated that a contempt notice issued against her on July 22 was an attempt to pressure her into withdrawing allegations against a senior police officer.
On the question of transferring the cases to another court, Chief Justice Nagu said, 'So far as the prayer of transferring the aforesaid three cases to any other High Court is concerned, the same cannot be granted since this Court is not vested with any such power; the petitioner for this purpose is free to approach the appropriate Forum.'
The judges clarified that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the high court's role is limited to reviewing the actions of the state or its agencies. If the petitioner disagrees with decisions made by a single judge, the appropriate course is to appeal through a letter patent appeal (LPA) or approach the Supreme Court, they said.
The bench noted, 'Pertinently, the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to assess the legality and validity of orders passed by the State or an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 by seeking one of the writs or for performance of any public function. The remedy against an order passed by learned Single Judge in civil or criminal jurisdiction is either by filing an LPA by demonstrating that the Single Bench passed the order overstepping the jurisdictional purviews, or by approaching the Higher Court i.e. the Apex Court.'
'Accordingly, this Court declines interference and leaves it to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy available under the law,' the bench concluded.