The judgment in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh Bhullar primarily addresses issues related to judicial bias, the jurisdiction of courts, and the proper exercise of inherent powers under the law. The Court emphasized that allegations of judicial bias must be examined in the context of the factual matrix, and that even the appearance of bias, without proof of actual prejudice, can be sufficient to invalidate a judgment or order. The Court clarified that such an apprehension of bias, if reasonable, renders the judicial process void, making the order a nullity.

Furthermore, the Court discussed that the doctrine of waiver applies when a party with knowledge of potential bias does not raise the objection at the earliest opportunity, and that raising such objections belatedly can amount to waiver. It reinforced that objections to bias must be raised promptly and by parties who are properly impleaded and given the opportunity to contest.

The judgment also reaffirmed that once a court has passed a final order, particularly under a statute that expressly limits the court's jurisdiction to review or alter its judgments, subsequent proceedings or attempts to revisit the order are barred. The Court held that the powers under statutory provisions and inherent jurisdiction are limited and cannot be exercised to revisit or modify final judgments unless there are exceptional circumstances such as abuse of process or miscarriage of justice.

In relation to the jurisdiction of courts, the Court underscored that a Judge or a Bench can only assume jurisdiction if the case has been properly assigned by the Chief Justice, and that any deviation from this process renders the order coram non-judice. It stressed that courts must adhere strictly to procedural rules to maintain judicial discipline and public confidence.

The Court also discussed the scope and limits of the High Court's powers under constitutional and procedural provisions, including the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It clarified that such powers are meant to prevent abuse of process and secure justice, but cannot be used to bypass statutory procedures or to conduct roving inquiries without proper basis.

Finally, the Court concluded that the orders passed by the High Court in this case, which involved entertaining applications after final disposal and expanding the scope of investigation improperly, were not sustainable. These orders were found to be made without proper jurisdiction and in a manner that undermined the rule of law. As a result, the Court declared the impugned orders null and void, quashed the FIR registered by the investigating agency, and emphasized that the parties involved could pursue fresh proceedings if permissible by law.