Constitution of India – Art.145 – Administrative authority of Chief Justice of India in preparing roster for allocation of cases – Clarification of – Held: Per A.K. Sikri, J.: The Constitution is silent on the role of the ‘Chief Justice’ – However, the Constitution Bench in the case of Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms had held that Chief Justice alone has the administrative control of the Supreme Court and he is the Master of the Roster and he alone has the prerogative to constitute the Benches of the Court and allocate cases to the Benches so constituted – Legal position contained in the various judgments of the Supreme Court is based upon healthy practice and sound conventions which have developed over a period of time and that stands engrafted in the Supreme Court Rules – The two most obvious functions of the ‘Chief Justice’ are to exercise judicial power as a Judge of the Court on equal footing as others, being ‘among equals’ and to assume responsibility of the administration of the Court, which gives him the ultimate authority for determining the distribution of judicial work load – Per Ashok Bhushan, J. (concurring): Sub-article (1) of Art.145 provides that subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the Supreme Court may from time to time, with the approval of the President, make rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court, including the various subjects as enumerated in sub-article (1) – The power of the Chief Justice to allocate cases flows from the rules framed u/Art.145 – The Chief Justice of India has been exercising the jurisdiction of formulating the roster for convenient distribution of Court’s business and constituting the benches from time to time – Furthermore, it is also clear from the law laid down by the Supreme Court in various Judgments that allocation of business of Court by the Chief Justice not only flows from the Constitutional provisions but it is the prerogative of the Chief Justice and which is a convention followed from the very beginning – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Practice and Procedure.
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Whether the expression ‘Chief Justice’ in the Supreme Court Rules is to be read as ‘Collegium’ of first five Judges – Held: Per A.K. Sikri, J.: 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 Supreme Court – Assigning of cases is undertaken by the Chief Justice on daily basis in contrast with the meetings of the Collegium for the purpose of appointment of Judges, which is infrequent – Thus, meeting of Collegium for the purpose of assigning the cases to a particular Bench on daily basis is impracticable – Per Ashok Bhushan, J. (concurring): Art.145 empowers the Supreme Court to frame rules with the approval of the President and the Rules framed by Supreme Court u/Art.145 specifically refers the Chief Justice in Chapter VI, the Chief Justice, who is to nominate the bench for hearing every case, appeal or matter – There is no indication in any of the Constitutional provisions or rules framed thereunder that allocation of cases and formation of benches, Chief Justice should be read as collegium – Practice and Procedure.
Disposing of the Writ petition, the Court
HELD:
Per A.K. Sikri, J.:
1. The ‘Chief Justice’ in his individual capacity is the Master of Roster and it cannot read as Collegium of first three or five Judges. Thus, it is his prerogative to constitute the Benches and allocate the subjects which would be dealt with by the respective Benches. [Para 20] [995-D-E]
2. The Constitution is silent on the role of the ‘Chief Justice’. There is no specific provision relating thereto either in the Constitution or even in any other law. The legal position contained in the earlier judgments is based upon healthy practice and sound conventions which have been developed over a period of time and that stands engrafted in the Supreme Court Rules. In fact, it is dominated by two stereo-types. One, perpetuated by the common belief and widely endorsed and accepted by all the stakeholders, is that the ‘Chief Justice’ occupies the role of ‘first among equals’. The phrase ‘among equals’ is generally relatable to the judicial function designed to emphasise the fact that voices of the members of a particular Bench, which may include ‘Chief Justice’, are given equal weight and that in deciding cases, the opinion of the ‘Chief Justice’ also carries same weight and is no different from those of other Members of the Bench. Thus, in a given case, there is a possibility that the view of the ‘Chief Justice’ may be a minority view and in that eventuality, the outcome of case would be what majority decides. The word ‘first’ in the aforesaid expression signifies only the fact that the ‘Chief Justice’ is the senior most Judge of the Court. [Para 21] [995-E-H; 996-A]
3. The second stereotype is that being the ‘Chief Justice’ and senior most Judge of the Court, he is empowered to exercise ‘leadership’ on the Court. In this role, the ‘Chief Justice’ is expected to be the spokesperson and representative of the judiciary in its dealings with the Executive, Government and the Community. For this purpose, the ‘Chief Justice’ has a general responsibility to ensure that the Court promotes change and reform as appropriate. The judicial reforms, which is a continuing process in order to ensure that there is real access to justice, also becomes the moral responsibility of the ‘Chief Justice’. Such reforms in the administration of justice are not limited to the judicial aspects (i.e. how the cases need to be decided, case management and court management, speedy disposal etc.) but also include reforms on the administrative side of the legal system as well. Procedural reforms and implementation thereof is an integral part of the judicial reform. The ultimate purpose is to dispense justice, which is the highest and noblest virtue. Again, in this role, the ‘Chief Justice’ gets the authority and responsibility for the administration of the Court, which gives him the ultimate authority for determining the distribution of judicial work load. [Para 22] [996-B-E]
4. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is given the authority to frame Rules for regulating generally the practice and procedure of the Court, including various subjects as enumerated in sub-Article (1) of Article 145. Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which have been framed in exercise of such a power empowered the Chief Justice to constitute the Benches and list particular matters before such Benches. Similar powers are conferred upon the Chief Justice of the High Courts in the Rules framed by respective High Courts for regulating its procedure. [Para 23] [997-A-B]
5. At the same time, the power of the ‘Chief Justice’ does not extend to regulate the functioning of a particular Bench to decide cases assigned to him once the cases are allocated to that Bench. A Bench comprising of puisne Judges exercise its judicial function without interference from others, including the ‘Chief Justice’, as it is supposed to act according to law. Therefore, when a particular matter is assigned to a particular Bench, that Bench acquires the complete dominion over the case. [Para 24] [997-C]
6. It follows that the two most obvious functions of the ‘Chief Justice’ are to exercise judicial power as a Judge of the Court on equal footing as others, being ‘among equals’ and to assume responsibility of the administration of the Court. [Para 25] [997-D]
Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India & Anr. (2018) 1 SCC 196 – followed.
State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand & Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 1 : [1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 1 ; Asok Pande v. Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and Ors. [2018] 3 SCR 337 – relied on.
Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association and Others v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 441 : [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 659 ; S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Another (1981) Suppl. SCC 87 : [1982] SCR 365 ; Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India and Others (1987) 4 SCC 611 : [1988] 1 SCR 512 ; Special Reference No. 1 of 1998 (1998) 7 SCC 739 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 400 – referred to.
Per Ashok Bhushan, J. (Concurring)
1. The law laid down by this Court as is clear from precedents, is that allocation of business of Court by the Chief Justice not only flows from the Constitutional provisions but is held to be prerogative of the Chief Justice and which is a convention followed from the very beginning. Apart from that, the power of the Chief Justice to allocate cases flows from rules framed under Article 145 of the Constitution of India. [Para 20] [1015-F]
2. With regard to procedure and practice of Supreme Court, Article 145 empowers the Supreme Court to frame rules with the approval of the President. The word practice and procedure of the Court are wide enough to include practice and procedure relating to preparation of roster and allocation of cases. The Rules framed by Supreme Court under Article 145 specifically refers that the Chief Justice is to nominate the bench for hearing every case, appeal or matter. There is no indication in any of the constitutional provisions or rules framed thereunder that for allocation of cases and formation of benches, Chief Justice should be read as collegium. [Para 27] [1021-D-E]
3. The Attorney General rightly stated that allocation of cases and constitution of benches, if it is given in the multiple hands, there shall be differences and hurdles in smooth distribution of work. Thus, the submission of the petitioner cannot be accepted that in allocating cases and formulating benches of the Supreme Court, the word “Chief Justice” should be read as collegium, which submission is unfounded and is rejected. [Para 28] [1022-A-B]
State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand & Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 1 : [1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 1 ; Inder Mani and Others v. Matheshwari Prasad and Others (1996)
6 SCC 587 : [1996] 7 Suppl. SCR 400 ; Union of India and Another v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) By LRs. Etc. (1989) 2 SCC 754 : [1989] 3 SCR 316 ;
D.C. Saxena v. Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India (1996) 5 SCC 216 : [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 677 ;
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Neeraj Chaubey and Others (2010) 10 SCC 320 : [2010] 11 SCR 542 ; S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) Suppl. SCC 87 ; [1982] 2 SCR 365 ; Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association and Others v. Union of India (1993)
4 SCC 441 : [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 659 ; Special Reference No.1 of 1998 (1998) 7 SCC 739 : [1998] 2 Suppl. SCR 400 ; Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India & Anr. (2018) 1 SCC
196 ; Asok Pande v. Supreme Court India through its Registrar and Ors, (2018) 5 SCALE 481 : [2018] 3 SCR 337 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.