Case Name- Shanti Bhushan V. Supreme Court of India, 2018
Bench- Justice Ashok Bhushan
Facts
The petitioner herein, who is a senior advocate practising in the Supreme Court, enjoys credible reputation in the profession as well as in public, has filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. In this writ petition, he seeks this Court to clarify the administrative authority of the Chief Justice of India (for short, the ‘Chief Justice’) as the Master of Roster and for laying down the procedure and principles to be followed in preparing the Roster for allocation of cases. As the Master of Roster, it is also conceded that it is the Chief Justice who has to decide as to which Bench will hear a particular case. The apprehension expressed is that keeping in view the predisposition of particular Judges, the Chief Justice may assign cases to those Judges to achieve a predetermined outcome. This calls for, according to the petitioner, devising a more rational and transparent system of listing and re-allocation of the matters to avoid any such possibilities.
Issues
This petition raises an issue regarding the administrative authority of the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice of India as the Master of Roster has considerable power to allocate cases to benches which gives him the power to rule over judicial proceedings.
Transparency in case allocation is necessary to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. It acts as a collecting thread between the Supreme court and a common man by ensuring the latter that his fundamental rights are duly protected.
There are potential risks of biasness and favouritism considering that any person, let alone be the Chief Justice, is a man of experiences and prejudices and may ot be able to comprehend all the knowledge and take a correct decision every time, hence the risks of biasness and favouritism are potentially high.
Judicial independence may be compromised if case assignments influenced by personal biases undermine the perceived impartiality of judges. Thus, the dependency of the judiciary on one single person, that is the Chief Justice, increases heavily.
Mechanisms such as instead of one single judge adjudicating the matters related to allocation of cases, a collegium of 5 Chief Justices should be established so as to reduce the potential risks of biasness and favouritism.
Judgement
The writ petition was disposed of by the court by stating that the practices and function of each Court are different which has been evolved by time looking to particular background and set of facts. The practice of a Court ripens into a convention by passage of time and rich heritage of conventions are time tested which is followed by different Courts. The conventions and practice of the Supreme Court are time tested, which practice and conventions of this Court have ripened with time which need not to be tinkered with or imitated from different international practices of different Courts. As noted above, the law laid down by this Court is that; the power of framing roster which inheres in the Chief Justice has constitutional and statutory backing and by convention it is treated as prerogative of the Chief Justice. The Court thus, cannot import the international practices in the constitutional and statutory scheme of this Court. Further, the handbook on practice and procedure and office procedure also laid down sufficient guidelines and elaboration of the procedure which is to be followed by theCourt. Thus, for the transaction of business of the Court, there are elaborate rules and procedures and it cannot be said that procedure and practice of the Court is unguided and without any criteria.The court is , however, not unconscious of the fact that working of any system is a continuous process and each and every organisation endeavours to improve the working of its system suitable to circumstances and the need. Improvement of functioning is always a goal of every system and all organisations endeavour to improve the system, which is always a welcome step. The Supreme Court cannot be an exception to the above objective and goal.
Objective
The objective of this case comment is to critically analyse the writ petition filed by a senior advocate regarding the administrative authority of the Chief Justice of India as the Master of Roster, focusing on the implications of case allocation practices, potential biases, and the necessity for transparency in the judicial system. It aims to delineate the main legal issues raised in the petition, specifically concerning the authority of the Chief Justice in assigning cases to judges, alongside the legal reasoning advocating for a more structured and transparent allocation system. Furthermore, the comment seeks to assess the effectiveness and fairness of existing procedures governing case allocations, questioning their capability to sufficiently mitigate the risks of bias influencing judicial decision-making. Additionally, proposals for improving the case allocation process will be discussed, emphasizing ideals of judicial independence, transparency, and accountability. Lastly, the comment will explore the broader socio-political implications of judicial case allocation and administration, understanding how these factors affect public trust in the judiciary and the rule of law in India.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the issues raised in the writ petition regarding the role of the Chief Justice of India as the Master of Roster underscore critical aspects of our judicial system that necessitate immediate attention and comprehensive reform. The potential for bias and favouritism in case allocation is a legitimate concern that undermines the integrity of the judiciary and the public's trust in the legal system. It is not merely a procedural flaw; it represents a fundamental challenge to the very principles of justice and fairness that the judiciary is tasked with upholding. The apprehensions expressed by the petitioner are reflective of a broader disillusionment among legal practitioners and the public alike, who seek assurance that their cases will be heard and adjudicated without prejudice.
In my personal opinion, the establishment of a standardised and transparent procedure for case allocation would significantly mitigate these concerns. Such a system should not only aim to diminish perceptions of bias but also fortify the legitimacy of judicial decisions by ensuring that all cases are allocated fairly and equitably. Implementing clear guidelines and objective criteria for case assignments would serve to promote consistency, allowing both litigants and judges to understand the basis on which decisions are made. This could include random allocation methods as well as a framework for rotation among judges to balance caseloads, thereby reducing the likelihood of biases influencing outcomes.
Moreover, fostering transparency in the judicial process can enhance public trust and confidence in the legal system. The fear that cases may be assigned to particular judges to secure predetermined outcomes is damaging not only to the individuals involved but also to the collective faith in our justice system. By encouraging an environment where judges are selected for their expertise and impartiality, rather than personal affiliations or biases, we can cultivate a legal ecosystem that reflects the values of a just society.
Ultimately, the integrity of our judicial system is fundamental to its effectiveness and the protection of individual rights. It is incumbent upon both the judiciary and the legal community to collaboratively develop a robust framework that guards against biases and promotes the rule of law. Addressing these concerns through necessary reforms not only aligns with constitutional principles but also enriches the judicial process, ensuring that it remains a pillar of democracy.
By taking these proactive steps, we can build a judiciary that not only reflects the dignity of our institutions but also reinstates faith in their capability to deliver impartial justice. In an era where the public's faith in judicial impartiality is under scrutiny, the need for reform has never been more pressing, serving as a vital reminder that the quest for justice must be as transparent and equitable as the principles it embodies.
By Isha Patel
Dr. DY Patil Law College, Pune
Intern at Nyaya Nishtha