Setting the record straight on who is the master of the roster, a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on Wednesday dismissed a petition challenging the authority of the CJI to allocate matters and constitute Benches.
Holding that there is no room for “presumption of mistrust” against the CJI, a Bench comprising the CJI, Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud said that the Constitution empowers the CJI to be first among equals under Article 146.
The petition filed by a lawyer Asok Pande sought to regulate the power of the CJI to allocate cases to specific Benches in order to curb arbitrariness. Dismissing the same, the Bench held that the CJI has “exclusive prerogative” in this matter and nobody can question it as this power is vested in him by virtue of his position of being the highest constitutional functionary of judiciary.
The judgment has come at a time when a similar petition filed by former law Minister Shanti Bhushan challenging the power of CJI to fix the roster of allocation of work for judges is pending for hearing in the apex court. The ruling will also settle the dispute raised by four seniormost judges of the Supreme Court early this year to question the arbitrary manner adopted by CJI to allocate politically sensitive cases to select Benches.
The decision, written by Justice Chandrachud, spoke about the position of the CJI under Constitution. “The authority (to allocate matters) is entrusted to the CJI because such an entrustment of functions is necessary for the efficient transaction of the administrative and judicial work of the court…The entrustment of functions to the Chief Justice as the head of the institution, is with the purpose of securing the position of the Supreme Court as an independent safeguard for the preservation of personal liberty. There cannot be a presumption of mistrust,” he said, speaking for the Bench.
The court took note of the scandalous statements made by the lawyer in the petition but let him off without cost.
The petition demanded that Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court must comprise of CJI with three senior most judges and two juniormost judges.
The court held, “Every judge appointed to this court under Article 124 of the Constitution is invested with the equal duty of adjudicating cases which come to the court and are assigned by the Chief Justice. Seniority in terms of appointment has no bearing on which cases a judge should hear.”
On the matter of allocation of cases and fixing of roster, Justice Chandrachud was of the view that Chief Justice of a High Court or Supreme Court has to bear in mind the area of specialisation of each judge, the need for judges to have a broad-based understanding of diverse areas of law, among other aspects while deciding the allocation of work.