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
The Hindu
12 minutes ago
- The Hindu
PFI's plea against ban not maintainable: Centre
The Centre on Monday (July 14, 2025) objected to the maintainability of Popular Front of India's (PFI) plea against an order upholding the five-year ban imposed on it by the government. The Centre informed a bench of the Delhi High Court which included Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela that the petition was not maintainable as the tribunal was headed by a sitting high court judge and therefore the order couldn't be challenged under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 'I have a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition. The remedy under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution is not available. The only remedy available is under Article 136 of the Constitution,' said Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju. Mr. Raju added, 'The tribunal was manned by a sitting judge of this high court and a high court judge is not subordinate to this court. Article 227 applies to subordinate courts'. The PFI counsel claimed the issue was with a division bench of the Delhi High Court in a previous case and the petition was therefore maintainable. The court posted the hearing for August 7. The PFI challenged the March 21, 2024 order of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act tribunal confirming the decision by the Centre on September 27, 2022. The court is yet to issue formal notice in the matter. The Centre banned the PFI for five years for its alleged links with global terrorist organisations, such as ISIS, and trying to spread communal hatred in the country.
India Gazette
33 minutes ago
- India Gazette
Appeal filed by Maulana Arshad Madani before IB Ministry seeking halt of 'Udaipur Files'
New Delhi [India], July 15 (ANI): A petition was filed by Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President Maulana Arshad Madani before the Delhi High Court seeking a ban on the Hindi movie 'Udaipur Files', which is based on tailor Kanhaiya Lal Teli's murder in Udaipur. The film was scheduled to be released on July 11. A day before its release, the Delhi High Court stayed the release of the film 'Udaipur Files' till the Centre decides the revision plea of the petitioners, including that of Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind President challenging the grant of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certification. Following the High Court's direction to file an appeal regarding the stay on the screening and reconsideration of the certificate issued by the Censor Board, Maulana Arshad Madani's lawyers on Monday submitted an appeal before the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. It is expected that the Ministry may hold a hearing on this application in the coming days. Meanwhile, the film's producer, Amit Jani has challenged the Delhi High Court's decision in Supreme Court of India. On the request of the film producer's lawyer, Senior Advocate Gaurav Bhatia, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi assured that the petition will be heard. Maulana Arshad Madani also filed a caveat in Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, will represent Maulana Arshad Madani in Supreme Court. In the petition submitted to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on behalf of Maulana Arshad Madani, it has been stated that films like 'Udaipur Files' promote division within society and that the promotion of such a film will tarnish India's image globally. The petition further states that Hindus and Muslims have lived together peacefully in our country for centuries, and therefore, the screening of such films could pose a serious threat to communal harmony. It is emphasized that the entire film is based on hatred, and its exhibition could disturb the peace and harmony of the nation. The Government of India has also been reminded that in the past, India faced international embarrassment and condemnation due to the remarks made by Nupur Sharma. At that time, the Government of India had issued a diplomatic statement affirming that India respects all religions and communities and removed Nupur Sharma from her position as spokesperson as a consequence of her remarks. It was due to these actions that some of the mistrust toward India on international platforms was reduced, and the country's image saw a relative improvement. The Government of India has also been informed that the past and present conduct of the filmmaker, Amit Jani, is filled with instances of incitement and disruptive behavior. Secondly, the film presents fabricated content that has no connection with reality. It also depicts the character of Nupur Sharma, whose controversial statement sparked nationwide protests and international outcry. The petition further states that despite the removal of 55 scenes, the film still appears largely unchanged. It is argued that the promotion of this film could incite violence in the country. The petition emphasizes that this film is not in the national interest, and therefore, the certificate granted for its screening should be revoked. As per the Delhi High Court's directive, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting must hear Maulana Arshad Madani's appeal and deliver a decision within one week. In the meantime, the ban on the film's release will remain in effect. (ANI)
Hindustan Times
36 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Rahul Gandhi to appear before MP/MLA court in Lucknow today
: Congress MP from Rae Bareli and leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi will appear before the MP/MLA court in Lucknow on Tuesday in a case related to disparaging remarks allegedly made by him about a face-off between Indian and Chinese soldiers. The comments were allegedly made during the Bharat Jodo Yatra on December 16, 2022. Congress MP from Rae Bareli and leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi (File photo) Advocate Vivek Tewari had filed the complaint against Rahul Gandhi on behalf of Uday Shankar Srivastava, a former director of the Border Roads Organisation with a rank equivalent to an Army colonel, in January 2023. Rahul Gandhi's alleged statement was derogatory towards the Army and hurt the sentiments of the armed forces, according to the complainant. Additional chief judicial magistrate Alok Verma, Lucknow, had earlier directed Rahul Gandhi to appear before the court on March 24, 2025, in the defamation case filed against him. Gandhi had challenged the additional CJM's order, passed on February 11, 2025, in the high court but did not get relief. Dismissing Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's petition, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court held that the right to freedom of speech and expression does not extend to making defamatory statements against the Indian Army. Gandhi had challenged the summons by a local court in connection with a case related to his alleged remarks on the Indian Army. A single-judge bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi on June 2, 2025, passed the order, rejecting Rahul Gandhi's petition challenging the additional CJM's order. 'No doubt, Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this freedom is subject to the reasonable restrictions and it does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army,' the high court observed. The high court dismissal of his petition paved the way for Rahul Gandhi to face trial in the lower court.
