The Supreme Court on Friday gave a constitutional stamp of authority to the Chief Justice of India to allocate matters and assign benches for hearing of cases in the Supreme Court and High Courts and said in taking these decisions, the CJI need not consult the collegium comprising the five senior-most judges.
The decision by a two-judge Bench came on a PIl filed by veteran lawyer Shanti Bhushan, who relied on recent instances where the CJI, using his power of being “Master of Roster”, assigned politically sensitive and important cases to select benches. It is significant as neither the Constitution nor any law lays down the power of the CJI to allocate cases. It is based on a customary practice and sound convention as practised in the past that is engrafted in the Supreme Court Rules.
The outcome of the PIl was much awaited as the CJI had faced opposition from his senior colleagues at the SC with four senior most judges holding a Press conference on January 12 this year to openly criticize him over “arbitrary” allocation of cases.
The Bench of Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan while disposing the PIl said that the CJI being Master of Roster has been established in a series of decisions, one given by a Constitution Bench recently. The supremacy of the CJI is established by two common stereotypes, said Justice Sikri. Due to his seniority the CJI is treated “first among equals” and secondly, he exercises “leadership” by representing the judiciary in dealing with executive, Government and the community.
Bhushan’s petition argued by senior advocate Dushyant Dave wondered that if the CJI can consult collegiums for appointing judges, should not the same rule apply to listing of cases. Justice Sikri said, “In case the expression ‘Chief Justice’ is to be interpreted as ‘Collegium’, it would be difficult to have smooth day-to-day functioning of the SC, or for that matter the HC….Meeting of the Collegium for the purpose of assigning the cases to a particular Bench on daily basis is clearly impracticable.”
The other judge, Justice Bhushan in his separate but concurring opinion felt the qualities of impartiality, fairness, independence cannot be infused by way of law or external training but are qualities that are inherent in a judge. While the PIl demanded safeguards to ensure the CJI does not misuse his power, the judges felt this was for the CJI alone to determine. Erosion of credibility is the greatest threat to independence of judiciary, said the Bench, adding that after the CJI allocates a matter to a particular Bench, that Bench will acquire the complete dominion over the case.