How master of roster powers are being used to reallocate cases from judges who question government

On August 7, a bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed a strong order criticising the Haryana government for unlawfully demolishing buildings in the districts of Nuh and Gurugram. The court called it an act of “ethnic cleansing” against Muslims.

The bench was hearing the matter suo motu, that is, of its own accord, without anyone specifically raising it before the court. It stayed demolitions in the two districts that were not as per the procedure prescribed in law. Such procedure requires, among other things, demolition orders and notices to the residents of the buildings sought to be removed by the government.

Three days later, however, the matter was suddenly transferred from this High Court bench to a different one. No reasons were given. This happened only a day before the next hearing.

This is not the first such instance of a matter being pulled away from judges critical of the government. Experts hold that this politicisation is a result of the discretionary, unchecked power that chief justices have over case allocation.

Justice Muralidhar’s transfer

This is not the first time this has happened. On February 26, 2020, a bench of the Delhi High Court led by Justice S Muralidhar had rebuked the Delhi Police in open court for the manner in...

Read more