The choice of bench is not a litigant’s to make, and a roster change on its own does not alter that: the Delhi High Court has held that a change of bench cannot be sought as of right.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Releasing a criminal petition from the category of part-heard matters without accepting the petitioner’s allegations as a ground for choosing the bench, the Delhi High Court has held that a litigant cannot claim a change of bench as a matter of right merely because the roster has changed [Shishir Chand v. Jai Anant Dehadrai and Another].
Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma decided CRL.M.C. 1780/2024 by an order dated October 8, 2026. The petitioner, Shishir Chand, appeared in person. Respondent no. 1, advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai, also appeared in person, with Advocates Yashvi Aswani and Ram Pravesh Dubey. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the case or the rival allegations.
What Chand asked for
After a roster change effective July 1, Chand sought release of the petition from the part-heard category, pointing to the release of other criminal matters. Dehadrai opposed the plea and was allowed to place additional documents on record, including social media posts attributed to Chand.
Part-heard, but not tied to one bench
Asked whether part-heard matters must stay with the same bench, the Court said:
“There can, therefore, be no inflexible rule that every part-heard matter must necessarily remain before the same Bench”
Such a question, it held, is for the concerned bench to consider on the facts of the case. An order releasing one matter does not lay down a general rule, and the choice of bench cannot be left to a litigant’s preference.
Criticism is one thing, bald allegations another
On allegations against the judiciary, the Court distinguished criticism of orders, which it said cannot merely because of its adverse nature be equated with an attack, from:
“bald allegations attributing corruption, collusion, deliberate manipulation or improper motives to individual Judges”
Allegations of that kind, the Court said, stand on a different footing, particularly where they are repeatedly made without any material. They cannot compel release of a matter or constitute a ground for selecting the bench before which it is heard.
No contempt for now, and a new listing date
Some of the posts, the Court noted, contain language that is personally derogatory or offensive, though their being taken on record is not an expression of opinion by the Court. It declined to initiate contempt proceedings at this stage:
“No finding is being returned as to whether any individual post constitutes criminal contempt”
No specific allegation had been made against this Court, it observed, and it has no interest in retaining the matter. CRL.M.C. 1780/2024 was accordingly released from the part-heard category and directed to be listed before the concerned Roster Bench, subject to the orders of the Chief Justice, on October 14, 2026.
Why the order matters
The order reaffirms that allocation of cases is not a litigant’s choice, and that a roster change gives no entitlement to a new bench. It also draws a line between fair criticism of judicial orders and unsubstantiated attacks on individual judges, while leaving the legal consequences of the material on record open.
Case Title: Shishir Chand v. Jai Anant Dehadrai and Another [CRL.M.C. 1780/2024]
Bench: Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: October 8, 2026
Appearances: Shishir Chand, petitioner in person; Jai Anant Dehadrai, respondent no. 1 in person, with Advocates Yashvi Aswani and Ram Pravesh Dubey