Complaint against the judge of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Sheel Nagu withdrew the case and began hearing himself - complaint came against the Supreme Court judge, Sheel Nagu, Judge of the Supreme Court, heard himself

Punjab Chief Justice and the High Court in Haryana, Sheel Nagu, while hearing the petition of M3M group promoter Roop Kumar Bansal, he said he had the right to subtract any case from any bank. He justified the intervention to maintain the fairness of the judiciary and rejected the object of the requester. The next trial will be held on May 26. State Bureau, Chandigarh. Chief Justice of Punjab and the High Court in Haryana, Sheel Nagu made it clear that he has the full right to surrender from any back to any other bank, whether he has been heard or reserved for the decision. He made this remark while hearing a petition to cancel the FIR related to the money laundering of the promoter Roop Kumar Bansal, promoter of the famous real estate group M3m. The case is related to the FIR submitted by the anti -Corruption Bureau in Panchkula on April 17. In this, Bansal was also accused as a requester, along with some nominee and some unknown accused. Earlier, the case was before a single bank where the decision was reserved after the trial on May 2 and the verdict would be pronounced on May 12. The Chief Justice received some complaints about the case, on which he took on an administrative order on May 10 and withdrew the case of the judge of a single bank and listed for a repetition in his single bank. On behalf of the filor, senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi objected that when the trial of a case was completed and the decision was assured, it was against the right process to transfer it. His argument was that once the case was handed over to a judge, it should not be intervened. The Chief Justice quoted the constitutional role of the Master of Roster or Roster, saying that if any questions are raised about the fairness, dignity and public belief of the judiciary, his intervention in such cases is not only justified, but also compulsory. Referring to examples of the Supreme Court and various Supreme Court, he said that the bank’s restructuring is completely appropriate in such a situation. The maintenance directorate also informed the court that the Information Report (ECIR) had already filed against Roop Bansal, related to money laundering. The ED has appointed the intervention of the Chief Justice to be completely essential and sensitivity. The court rejected the object of the requester and determined the next trial date on May 26. During this time, the facts of the case will be mainly considered. The court also said that as long as the justice of the judiciary and the confidence of the public remains, only the real purpose of justice can be fulfilled. In such a situation, it is in the right to act on any complaint that harms the reputation of the institute.