10 new Additional Judges take oath in Punjab and Haryana HC
With these appointments, the Punjab and Haryana Court's current working strength has risen to 59, against a sanctioned strength of 85.
Chief Justice Sheel Nagu administered the oath of office to the new judges at the High Court auditorium. The event was attended by sitting and former judges, senior government officials, members of the legal community, and families of the newly elevated judges.
The judges who took oath include Virinder Aggarwal, Mandeep Pannu, Amarinder Singh Grewal, Parmod Goyal, Rupinderjit Chahal, Shalini Singh Nagpal, Subhas Mehla, Surya Partap Singh, Aaradhna Sawhney, and Yashvir Singh Rathor.
In February, Harmeet Singh Grewal and Deepinder Singh Nalwa were inducted as Additional Judges of the Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Last month saw the high court bid farewell to three judges who were posted out. They included Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, who was transferred to the Rajasthan HC, Justice Anil Kshetarpal, who moved to the Delhi HC, and Justice Sudhir Singh, who was posted back to the Patna HC.
The new judges are expected to help the court reduce the backlog of cases. The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) indicates that as of October 2024, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had a pendency of around 4.2 lakh cases, slightly reduced from the 4.5 lakh reported in September 2021 due to improved case management systems and e-filing mandates effective from November 2024 and January 2025.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court disposed of approximately 1.2 lakh cases in 2024, while new filings were around 1.3 lakh.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
In rare courtroom twist, lawyer daughter wins case against ex-IG father; restores sacked cop's job, honour
'Just doing our jobs,' say both sides Live Events From accusation to acquittal & redemption (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel In a real-life legal drama fit for the big screen, a daughter-lawyer and her former police chief father found themselves on opposite sides of a case — yet both insist there was no personal feud, according to a TOI Anura Singh, practising at the Allahabad High Court , successfully fought for the reinstatement of UP Police head constable Tofeek Ahmad, who had been dismissed from service after being accused of molesting a the other side was her father, retired Inspector General of Bareilly Range, Dr. Rakesh Singh , who had upheld Ahmad's dismissal during his High Court, in its July 31 order, overturned both the departmental inquiry report and the dismissal, clearing the way for Ahmad's return to duty. The compliance order will now be sent to the SSP Bareilly before his reinstatement is described the unusual courtroom moment as strictly professional. 'My father was representing the government's position, and I was defending my client. The High Court stands above any administrative authority — our job was to present the facts and secure justice,' she Singh agreed, adding, 'I'm proud of her. She worked hard, argued within the legal framework, and achieved what she set out to do.'For Anura, the case was about exposing flaws in the termination process, particularly since her client had been acquitted by a lower court due to investigative lapses, TOI further Dr. Singh, his earlier decision reflected the department's policy that an officer's conduct must not tarnish its reputation, especially in sensitive cases involving the POCSO ordeal began in January 2023, when he was arrested for allegedly molesting a 17-year-old girl, the daughter of a BSF jawan, aboard the Triveni Express. Following a departmental probe, IG Singh ordered his dismissal. Even after a court acquittal, Ahmad's appeal for reinstatement was of his lawyer's family connection, Ahmad approached Anura for help. She took on the case and convinced the court that the inquiry and disciplinary action were deeply flawed, noted the TOI revelation that his 'saviour' was the daughter of the officer who had sacked him left Ahmad stunned. 'She put truth above family ties and upheld the law. She gave me back my job and my honour,' he said.
Indian Express
11 hours ago
- Indian Express
J&K Home Department ‘forfeits' 25 books: What does it mean?
The Jammu & Kashmir Home Department issued a notification on August 5, which categorised 25 books as 'forfeited'. These include political biographies, historical accounts and academic works set against the backdrop of the region's politics and history by authors like A G Noorani and Arundhati Roy. The notification has stated that these works carry 'false narratives' and propagate secessionist ideology by 'misguiding the youth, glorifying terrorism, and inciting violence'. It also said their continued circulation could influence the youth in ways that encourage alienation from 'the Indian state'. The move came on the sixth anniversary of the abrogation of Article 370, which, until August 5, 2019, granted special constitutional status to Jammu & Kashmir. Forfeiture is the legal mechanism, which, unlike censorship that modifies or withholds content, removes a book or printed materials from circulation entirely within a notified area. Once a forfeiture order is issued, the material can no longer be printed, sold, or distributed. Police officers are empowered to search premises and seize copies if they have reasonable suspicion that a banned book is stored there. The effect is immediate, thus making forfeiture one of the most direct tools available to the state in dealing with literature deemed unlawful. The notification relies primarily on Section 98 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which allows the state to forfeit any printed material (newspapers, books, documents) containing matter punishable under specific sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. This includes acts endangering the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, promoting enmity between groups, matters intended to outrage religious feelings, among others. To act under Section 98, the government must form the opinion that the material meets these criteria, record its reasons and publish them in a notification. Note that while the Constitution's Article 19 (1) (a) grants all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression, Article 19(2) permits 'reasonable restrictions' on the exercise of the right. This is permitted in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; the security of the state; friendly relations with foreign states; public order; or preventing incitement to the commission of an offence. Forfeiture orders are examined against this constitutional framework. Those affected by such an order, or 'any person of interest', can challenge the notification in the High Court with jurisdiction over the area where it was issued. The Supreme Court has previously addressed similar provisions. For instance, in State of Maharashtra & Ors vs Sangharaj Damodar Rupawate & Ors (2010), the SC evaluated the validity of a notification issued under Section 95 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 98, BNSS) by the Maharashtra government. The notification had directed the forfeiture of 'Shivaji-Hindu King in Islamic India', a book written by James W Laine. The notification said that the book contained derogatory remarks about Shivaji and thus may cause enmity and violence among various communities. The SC laid down various factors that should be taken into consideration while issuing such a notification. These include whether the government has stated its grounds for opinion, and if those grounds are based on facts. The order of forfeiture should also be justified by the merits of the grounds mentioned. The apex court also said that the language and the content of the 'offending' material should be understood based on the intention of the author, and the subsequent impact on the readers. The government is not required to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, but has the responsibility to show that the ingredients of the offence appear to be present, the court said.
Indian Express
17 hours ago
- Indian Express
Banke Bihar Temple row: Supreme Court sets up 14-member panel to oversee functioning
The Supreme Court has set up a 14-member high-powered Temple Management Committee under former Allahabad High Court judge Justice Ashok Kumar to 'oversee and supervise the day-to-day functioning inside and outside' the Banke Bihari temple in Vrindavan till the High Court takes a decision on the constitutional validity of the Uttar Pradesh Ordinance bringing the shrine management under a trust. The August 8 order by a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said: 'The Committee shall make an endeavor to plan the holistic development of the Temple… for which they may privately negotiate suitable purchase of the requisite land. In case no such negotiation fructifies, the State Government is directed to proceed with acquisition of the required land in accordance with law.' The court also said 'besides the four members in the Committee representing the Goswamis, no other Goswami or sevayat shall be allowed to interfere or impede in any way in the managing of the Temple's critical functions…' The order came on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Ordinance and the directions in the SC's May 15, 2025 order allowing the state to use temple funds to buy 5 acres of land around the shrine for a proposed corridor project intended to decongest the area and improve facilities for visiting devotees. The SC pointed out that even before the May 15 order, the HC had by order dated November 8, 2023 disallowed the state from utilising the temple funds for land acquisition as part of the proposed redevelopment plan and the judgment was never challenged by the state and had thus attained finality. Noting that the May 15 order was passed not in any appeal challenging the November 2023 order, but by enlarging the scope of another matter where it was hearing a plea regarding the administration of Sri Giriraj Temple at Govardhan, Mathura, the SC said, given the fact that the HC order had attained finality, 'this Court could not have, in exercise of its civil appellate jurisdiction, effectively set aside the HC's judgment without any formal appeal or challenge being placed before it'. The SC directed that the concerned paragraphs be expunged from the May 15 order. While directing those who had challenged the constitutional validity of the Ordinance to approach the HC, the bench stayed the 'operation of' its 'in the interregnum, only to the extent they grant the state powers to constitute a Trust for managing the Temple's affairs'. 'Consequently, the constitution of the Shree Bankey Bihari Ji Temple Trust, as defined in Section 3 of the Ordinance and its composition, as contained in Section 5, shall be kept in abeyance till the question of validity of the Ordinance is finally resolved by the High Court.' It clarified that 'this interim direction shall not preclude the state from ratification of the Ordinance in the state Assembly' but added that this will 'obviously be subject to outcome of the' HC decision on the Ordinance. It asked the HC to decide the question of constitutional validity of the UP Ordinance 'expeditiously and preferably within one year of the fresh writ petitions being filed'. Explaining why it was setting up the committee, the court said, 'We are equally mindful that the sum of our directions shall effectively leave the management of the subject-Temple in limbo yet again, since the ad-hoc arrangement of Temple-management has been wholly ineffective and inefficient in discharging its duties over the years. We are pained to observe that the previous administerial deadlock(s) and in-fighting have only worsened the problems… causing much distress to the pilgrims…'
