Alok Verma

The VC of @MCNUJC_Bhopal justified banning of my book’s session and book on Babur at Bhopal Lit Fest. According to him discussing invaders is like spreading negativity. It’s so disheartening to see such cowards are office bearers of such prestigious universities.

Madhya Pradesh: 50 IAS officers purchase argicultural land on same day Approve ₹3,200 crore bypass project, reclassify land as ‘residential’ and jack up property prices 11 times opindia.com/news-updates/m…

#ImportantNews: Within days of 7 AAP Rajya Sabha MPs from Punjab shifting allegiance to the BJP, at least 3 politically sensitive matters connected to some of them came up before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, specifically, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu. I’ve found that in two of these three cases, the High Court’s own listing process did not follow the ordinary roster. For instance: 1. In Sandeep Pathak’s case: The case concerned Pathak who approached the High Court apprehending coercive action by the Punjab government. During the hearing, the State said no coercive action would be taken without intimating the Court, but the written order records it as no coercive action without “prior permission” of the Court. The issue of maintainability was also not decided. Interestingly, the High Court’s own March 2026 notified roster shows that the MP/MLA criminal matters are before Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya’s bench. However, this matter was listed before Chief Justice Nagu through a special administrative order. And a sweeping relief was granted. 2. In Rajinder Gupta’s case: Gupta’s petition seeking security cover was somehow specifically listed before Chief Justice Nagu, even though similar matters were pending before Justice Jagmohan Bansal’s bench who also holds the roster. The Main case is CWP 12075-2026. The High Court's order itself notes that the Ministry of Home Affairs had already provided security cover to Gupta in Punjab and Delhi yet the case was listed before a different bench for reasons unknown. 3. In the Trident case: The third case is CWP-13613-2026, Trident Limited vs State of Punjab and Anr. This matter concerned a raid conducted on 30 April 2026 by officers of the Punjab Pollution Control Board. Trident, whose Chairman Emeritus is Rajinder Gupta, sought protection from coercive steps and also sought a direction that the seized samples be sent to a Central Testing Laboratory outside Punjab. Although the roster originally remains with the Chief Justice's bench, the bench went out of the way to grant a relief by observing in the order that Trident’s apprehension that the raid stemmed from political vendetta appeared “reasonably palpable”. The Court ultimately directed that the Pollution Control Board could take coercive steps only after giving Trident 30 days to rectify minor deficiencies, even though the Water Rules only allow a 15-day notice period! And this, after the bench itself took note of the Pollution Control Board’s objection that Trident had an alternative remedy before the National Green Tribunal. The bench also referred to Rule 32(6) of the Punjab Water Rules, under which prior hearing can be dispensed with where grave environmental injury is likely! The Larger Issue Take these three cases together. Three matters connected to AAP-to-BJP defectors reached the Chief Justice within a short span. At least two belonged before other roster benches. The matters were specially listed before Chief Justice Nagu by a Special Administrative Order. And in all three cases, the Court granted some form of protective relief, even sweeping in Pathak’s case which a opposition leader can only dream of getting. The concern is not simply about the outcome of these cases. It is about the route by which they reached the Chief Justice, and the absence of a TRANSPARENT explanation for why these cases were so special that ordinary roster allocation did not apply! The Chief Justice is the master of the roster, sure. But precisely because that power determines which judge hears which case, it carries a duty of VISIBLE neutrality. In politically sensitive matters, especially those involving recent defections from one party to another, even the appearance of selective listing can raise serious institutional questions. The Pathak-Kejriwal Comparison This is the most important part. Just compare Sandeep Pathak’s case before a High Court of a non-BJP state with Arvind Kejriwal’s case before the High Court of a BJP state, and you will see how different yardsticks apply in each. In Pathak’s case, the designated roster judge for MP/MLA criminal matters very much existed. Yet, Chief Justice Nagu issued a special administrative order to list the matter before himself and then granted Pathak sweeping protection by converting prior intimation into a mandatory judicial pre-clearance before any action could be taken. But in Kejriwal’s case before the Delhi High Court, the opposite happens. Despite serious and well-documented concerns of conflict of interest, bias, and unusual judicial attachment to the CBI appeal matter, the Chief Justice remains silent. The case is not withdrawn from that judge. It is not placed before a fresh bench. The larger context too is hard to ignore. The Supreme Court’s INACTION and DELAY in the AAP vs LG constitutional crisis in Delhi and MVA government toppling in Maharashtra, and its ACTIVE intervention in Bengal’s SIR case, have produced political consequences that have greatly benefited the political fortunes of the same side. Recently, CJI Surya Kant raised the sensitive issue of Punjab’s drug menace, observing that the “big fish” are not being caught by the State government. Punjab goes to polls in a matter of months. So can the timing be treated as accidental? Each of these instances, viewed separately, may be explained away with a shrug. But look at them together, and a deeply disturbing pattern emerges. It is this pattern---of SELECTIVE urgency, SELECTIVE silence, SELECTIVE roster control, and SELECTIVE intervention that corrodes public faith in the judiciary’s neutrality. Unfortunately, soon, citizens will begin to notice the growing weaponisation of the judiciary.