A roster change does not automatically require release of a part-heard matter.

The petitioner sought release of CRL.M.C. 1780/2024 from the Bench hearing it, relying on a new roster effective from 1 July 2026 and the release of other matters by that Court.

The matter had been heard and marked part-heard on 21 January 2026, and was heard again on 28 July 2026.

Respondent no. 1 opposed release and sought to place additional documents—including social-media posts attributed to the petitioner—on record, as well as initiation of criminal-contempt proceedings.

The parties’ wider disputes and rival allegations were noted as background, but were not to be adjudicated in these applications.

Whether a matter already heard part-heard should be released from the Bench after a change in roster, in light of the hearing already undertaken and the circumstances of the case.

Whether the additional documents should be taken on record and criminal-contempt proceedings initiated against the petitioner.

The Court treated roster allocation as an administrative function within the prerogative of the Chief Justice, while holding that whether a part-heard matter should remain with the same Bench or be released must be determined in the circumstances of the case.

Relevant considerations include the extent of hearing, judicial time invested, stage of proceedings and applicable roster; neither retention nor release is governed by an inflexible rule.

The Court also stated that release of another matter does not create a right to identical treatment, and that litigants cannot choose the Bench before which their matter is heard.

The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was invoked by respondent no. 1 in seeking action, but the Court made no finding that any post constituted criminal contempt.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the release of other matters entitled him to release of this matter, noting that each matter’s procedural history and stage may differ and that seeking release cannot become a means of securing a preferred Bench.

It nevertheless considered the part-heard status, judicial time invested, subsequent hearing and new roster, alongside the circumstances of the case.

Finding that the application sought release on the ground of roster change, that no specific allegation had been made against the Court, and that the Court had no interest in retaining the matter amid its new roster and demanding list, it considered release appropriate.

As to the additional documents, the Court permitted them to be placed on record without expressing any view on their truth, authenticity, authorship or legal effect, and declined to initiate contempt proceedings at that stage.

The Court released CRL.M.C. 1780/2024 from the part-heard category and directed that it be listed before the concerned Roster Bench, subject to the Chief Justice’s orders, on 14 October 2026.

It expressed no opinion on the merits of the petition or the parties’ rival allegations.