In the corridors of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, a petition meant to quash a bribery case has mutated into a legal circus — one starring shifting judges, elite lawyers, whispered complaints, and a Chief Justice who finally declared: enough.
The central figure? Roop Bansal, Director of real estate giant M3M, and one of the accused in a bribery scandal that allegedly saw a trial court judge pocket crores in illicit favors. But the real chaos hasn’t been in the FIR — it’s been in the courtroom.
Since 2023, five judges have presided over Bansal’s quashing plea. Four of those switches happened in just the last few months.
On May 10, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu pulled the case from Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu after judgment had already been reserved, and chose to hear it himself. No official reason given. Just whispers. But it was enough to stop everything.
Then came the fireworks. On Monday, Justice Nagu dropped a bombshell: a lawyer had allegedly been brought in just to get the case delisted from a particular judge — an act he suggested bordered on bench-shopping. The Chief was not amused.
A Case That Won’t Sit Still
Let’s rewind.
This saga begins in 2023, when the Anti-Corruption Bureau registered a criminal case against then-Special Judge (CBI/PMLA) Sudhir Parmar. The charge: granting undue favors to M3M and IREO Group in a money laundering case. The Enforcement Directorate claimed Parmar received bribes worth ₹5–7 crore.
Bansal, one of the accused, initially approached the High Court in October 2023 to scrap the FIR. His team — a heavyweight legal ensemble — first filed through Advocate Kunal Dawar and paraded senior counsels like Randeep Singh Rai and Vikram Chaudhri. The case floated before Justice Anoop Chitkara for months.
Then the judicial game of musical chairs began.
Roster change. Justice NS Shekhawat. Three hearings. He recused.
Then came Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul. Two hearings. In January 2025, Bansal’s lawyers asked to withdraw — aiming, it seemed, for a better plea. And they got their wish.
The Return of the Petition
A fresh plea emerged in April, this time filed by Advocate JK Singla — though, oddly, he never once appeared in court. Since Singla’s cases aren’t typically listed before Justice Kaul (likely due to unstated conflict reasons), the matter was reassigned to Justice Sindhu.
From April 24 to May 2, Justice Sindhu prioritized the case. Notices were issued. Records summoned. The ED was made a party. Arguments heard. Judgment reserved.
And then — the twist.
Chief Justice Nagu pulled the case from Sindhu. Reason? Undisclosed complaints. He assigned it to himself.
Legal Heavyweights Enter the Ring
On May 12, Nagu heard the matter with Bansal now represented by a power panel: Mukul Rohatgi, Puneet Bali, and Rakesh Nehra. They protested Nagu’s takeover. He rejected their objections and fixed the matter for May 26.
But come the day, the drama only escalated. Counsel said Bali was abroad, and Vijay Aggarwal — another lawyer on the case — was in surgery. Adjournment was sought.
ED’s counsel pushed back. The Chief Justice snapped.
He demanded that JK Singla — the filing counsel — appear personally. “Call Mr. JK Singla whose power was filed just to get the case out of a particular bench,” he thundered. “You are destroying the Bar virtually.”
It was more than judicial frustration — it was a scathing indictment of the state of legal ethics.
No one could locate Singla. Bansal’s team scrambled. The bench refused further delays.
Justice Nagu ordered the case to be heard the very next morning — but only by someone whose name was actually on the Power of Attorney. No showmen. No substitutions. No excuses.
A Case That Now Raises Bigger Questions
What began as a routine quashing petition has turned into something else entirely: a litmus test for judicial integrity, professional ethics, and the invisible mechanics of courtroom maneuvering.
While the bribery accusations are serious, the spotlight has shifted. The court seems less concerned with what happened outside its walls, and more alarmed by what’s happening inside.
In a system built on procedure, process, and principles — this case is now about all three.