In a recent ruling dated August 4, 2025, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a writ petition (CWP-22171-2025) filed by Advocate Ravneet Kaur, who had requested the transfer of her pending cases from Court No. 64 to another bench or to a different High Court altogether.
The Division Bench, comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Hon’ble Justice Sanjiv Berry, delivered a detailed judgment addressing the petitioner's concerns. The petitioner appeared in person and pleaded that the transfer was necessary to uphold the principles of natural justice, equity, and institutional dignity.
Read also:- Delhi HC Validates GST Demand Against Tata Play in ₹10 Crore ITC Case
Petitioner’s Demands and Grounds
Advocate Ravneet Kaur sought two main reliefs:
- A writ of mandamus directing the High Court to transfer her pending matters - CRM-M 28149 of 2024, CRWP 559 of 2025, and CRM-M 38522 of 2025 - from Court No. 64 to another court or any other High Court in India.
- A writ of prohibition restraining the registry from listing any of her future matters before Court No. 64.
She contended that continuing with the same court would compromise the fairness and neutrality expected in judicial proceedings.
"This Court is not empowered to transfer matters to other High Courts," the Bench observed.
Read also:- Madras High Court Commends Tamil Nadu’s Policy for Transgender and Intersex Persons
On the first prayer, the Court clarified that transferring cases to another High Court lies beyond its jurisdiction. The petitioner was advised to approach the appropriate forum for such relief.
On the second prayer, regarding the internal transfer from one bench to another within the same High Court, the Court revealed that this request had already been considered and rejected on the administrative side.
The Court emphasized that Article 226 of the Constitution can only be invoked to test the legality of actions by the State or its instrumentalities. It cannot be used to challenge the jurisdiction of a bench unless the decision significantly violates legal or constitutional boundaries.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Rejects Petition to Quash FIR in Domestic Violence Case Citing Abuse of Court Process
"The remedy against an order by a Single Judge lies in filing an LPA or approaching the Supreme Court," the Bench clarified.
After reviewing the petition and legal position, the High Court found no merit for judicial interference. Accordingly,
the plea was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted liberty to explore other legal remedies available under law.
Case Title: Ravneet Kaur vs. Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and Another
Case Number: CWP-22171 of 2025