SC flags Gurugram court practice of in-charge judges deciding cases on leave

Bench seeks year-long data on such final orders and questions ex parte eviction without notice, asking HC to detail judges, cases and orders before March 16.

In a significant order, the Supreme Court has directed the Punjab and Haryana High Court to scrutinise a “prevailing practice” in a Gurugram court where cases assigned to a judge on leave are decided by another judge, despite rules not permitting it. A bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar, in a February 2 order, called a report by the high court’s registrar general “completely misplaced” for accepting a judge’s explanation based on this practice.

Registrar general’s report termed misplaced as rules say matters auto-adjourn; SC wants affidavit on how many cases in-charge judges decided in past year. (HT Archive)

The case concerns an eviction order dated November 24, 2025, passed by a Gurugram rent controller against the Anjali Foundation for alleged non-payment of rent without issuing notice. The Supreme Court, having sought an explanation in December 2025, received a report on January 31 citing a local “prevailing practice” referenced in an August 17, 2024 order of the District and Sessions Judge, Gurugram. That order allowed pending matters to be “attended to” by an in-charge judge when the regular judge is on leave.

The bench sharply distinguished between “attending” proceedings and deciding cases. “The attending of the proceedings would not mean deciding the cases of a judge who is on leave by the in-charge judge on the same date by passing the final order,” it observed. The Court noted the rules and orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court state that if a presiding officer is absent, cases “shall be deemed to have been automatically adjourned to the next working day.” The rules, it said, do not indicate an in-charge judge can decide the lis (suit) in such circumstances.

The tenant, represented by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi in its dispute with landlord Anil Mehra, detailed that the case was initially before Civil Judge, Junior Division Santosh, who was on leave, and was adjourned to January 17. However, on the same day, it was placed before in-charge judge and Rent Controller Hari Kishan, who passed an ex-parte eviction order without notice or hearing. The Foundation, while agreeing to vacate by February 28, 2026, and not challenging the eviction, raised the issue of propriety.

The Supreme Court also questioned “the propriety of passing a final order in the absence of counsel for the respondent.” It clarified that in urgent cases, an in-charge judge may grant interim protection, but only of an interim nature.

The bench has now demanded a further affidavit from the registrar general disclosing, for the past year, how many final orders were passed by in-charge judges disposing of cases while the regular judge was on leave. It sought detailed particulars, including names of in-charge judges with UID numbers, case descriptions, and the orders passed. The matter is posted for March 16.