Back
The has ruled that a litigant cannot seek a change of Bench as a matter of right merely because the court's roster has changed, and has released a part-heard criminal miscellaneous petition filed by Shishir Chand for listing before the concerned . Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma disposed of the in CRL.M.C. 1780/2024 on .
Chand's application, CRL.M.A. 24550/2026, was founded on the fresh roster of Benches effective from . He pointed out that the Court had on released certain other criminal matters, including CRL.M.C. 14/2025 and W.P. (Crl.) 1744/2024. In the alternative, he sought a clarification why the present matter should continue before the same Bench despite the change in roster.
Respondent , an in practice for more than fifteen years, opposed the plea. He told the Court that Chand had repeatedly initiated against him before the , the , district courts and this Court. Dehadrai had earlier represented Chand in proceedings arising from the death of Chand's younger brother, Vishal Chand, and alleged irregularities concerning the medical qualifications of one Atul Chhabra. Chand alleged that Dehadrai withdrew from representation on , one day before a crucial hearing in W.P. (C) No. 277/2017.
Chand further contended that concerning Atul Chhabra's medical degree were later placed before the court, and that the order dated was consequently and relied on in other proceedings, including the investigation into FIR No. 164/2014 registered under in connection with his brother's death. He said an and against that order did not bring him relief. He also referred to later proceedings, including Cont. Case (C) No. 839/2019, proceedings under initiated in against the General Manager of , Atul Chhabra and the Registrar of , his own criminal complaint CT/2517/2024, Criminal Revision No. 325/2025 and Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 61/2026. He relied on an order dated in W.P. (C) No. 11820/2021 setting aside a restriction imposed by the on his further RTI appeals.
Part-heard status, roster change and
Explaining the significance of , Justice Sharma observed that once a Court has commenced hearing and invested substantial judicial time, continuity before the same Bench avoids duplication of judicial effort. But she made it clear that there could be that every part-heard matter must remain with the same Bench, or must necessarily be released, after a fresh roster is constituted. The decision, she said, must turn on the facts of each case, including the stage of hearing and the judicial time already invested.
The Court held that the release of other criminal matters could not, by itself, create a right in favour of Chand to claim an identical order. The circumstances, stage of hearing and procedural history of each matter could differ.
"The choice of the Bench before which a matter is to be heard cannot be left to the preference of a litigant,"
Justice Sharma held.
The Court added that the require that allocation and continuation of judicial business remain governed by applicable institutional arrangements and orders of the Court. The process of seeking release of a matter, it cautioned, cannot be used as a means of repeatedly seeking a change of Bench, delaying proceedings or attempting to secure a .
Social-media posts and the contempt plea
By CRL.M.A. 25055/2026, Dehadrai sought to place additional documents on record and to initiate proceedings against Chand. The documents included a compilation of social-media posts attributed to Chand. The Court noted that Chand, , admitted to having published several of those posts.
The material, the Court observed, contained allegations against sitting and former Judges of the and this Court, questioning the integrity of judicial officers, attributing improper motives to judicial decisions, and alleging manipulation in the constitution of Benches and collusion with political or corporate entities. Certain posts also contained personally derogatory or offensive language directed at public functionaries, including women holding elected public office.
Drawing a distinction that is central to the law of contempt, the Court said:
"A litigant is entitled to question an order, challenge its reasoning, and pursue the remedies available in law."
It added:
"However,
stand on a different footing."
The Court allowed Dehadrai's request to take the additional documents on record, but clarified that this did not amount to an expression of opinion on their truth, authenticity, authorship or legal effect. It declined to initiate contempt proceedings at this stage, returned no finding on whether any individual post constituted , and left the question open. Dehadrai was given liberty to raise any grievance by an appropriate application or petition, if so advised.
Matter released for
Turning to the release plea, the Court noted that no specific allegation had been made against this Bench, and Chand's request was based only on the change of roster. Observing that it had no interest in retaining the matter before itself, and that its new roster already comprised old cases and a long cause list, Justice Sharma considered it appropriate to place the matter before the concerned . Accordingly, CRL.M.C. 1780/2024 was released from the category of . The Court directed that it be listed before the concerned , subject to the orders of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, on .
The judgment clarified that no opinion had been expressed of the main petition or on the truth of the rival allegations between the parties. Both applications were disposed of in these terms.
