Case:-Shanti Bhushan Vs. Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and Another
[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018
Arising out of Diary No. 12405 of 2018]
Bench:- A.K.Sikri,Ashok Bhushan
Parties:- Petitioner:-Shanti Bhushan
Respondent:- Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and Another.
INTRODUCTION:-
This case is also popularly known as ‘Master of Roster Case’. In this, a senior advocate Shanti Bhushan filed a PIL in Supreme Court of India challenging the power of Chief Justice of India to solely decide the roster and listing of cases before the bench which was alleged to be abused with legal malice.
FACTS:-
The petitioner, a senior advocate practicing in the Supreme Court of India, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the constitution of India.The Petition acknowledged the legal principle that the Chief Justice of India has the authority to allocate cases to different benches/judges of the Supreme Court, but argued that the allocation of cases should strictly follow the provisions of the Supreme Court Rules,2013. The petitioner contended that the power to frame Rules under Article 145 of the Constitution of India is conferred upon the entire Court, which includes the Chief Justice and other judges of the Court.
ISSUES:-
•Whether the term ‘Chief Justice’ should be interpreted to mean ‘Collegium’ of five senior most judges including the ‘Chief Justice ‘ for ensuring that cases are assigned in a fair and transparent manner.
•Whether the Chief Justice of India has the sole discretion to allocate cases and constitute benches of the Supreme Court.
•Whether the power to frame Rules under Article 145 of the Constitution of India is conferred upon the entire Court.
JUDGMENT:-
Judgment and Decision
The two judge bench in this case held as follows:
-It relied on judgments of Asok Pande case and CJAR case to refuse the contentions of the petitioner and held that the authority of CJI to decide the roster shall not be delegated to the collegium and that it exercises its power within the ambit of Art 145 and Supreme Court rules.
-The contention of petitioner that relying on the judgement of Second Judge’s Case the bench in this case shall allow the decision of roster to be made by first five judges was denied on the ground that Second Judges Case was related to power of appointment under Art. 125 whereas the power concerned here is administrative power under Art. 145.
-Hence, if the term CJI is allowed to be interpreted as a collegium in this case as well, it will hinder the smooth functioning of day to day process of the court and hence would not be justified in the instant case.
-Further, the bench observed that allocation of cases to a particular bench is a process that needs to be done daily and therefore it would be very impractical to allow this to be decided by a collegium of five judges every day.
-However, the bench agreed with the petitioner on one point that this power shall be exercised strictly in accordance with Supreme Court rules.
-Also the bench stated that it allocation of cases needs to be done by CJI because if it will be allowed that judges may choose the cases they are willing to hear and decide, it would create practical problems and will disturb the smooth functioning of the court.
Hence the bench refused to accept the plea made by the petitioner and decided in the favour of respondents that power of allocation of cases to the bench is a purely administrative decision of the CJI and cannot be delegated to the collegium.
CASE ANALYSIS:-
The Court’s decision reaffirms the principle tha the Chief Justice of India has the sole discretion to allocate cases and constitute benches of the Supreme Court. The Court also clarifies that the power to frame Rules under Article 145 of the Constitution of India is conferred upon the entire Court, which includes the Chief Justice and other judges of the Court. The decision is significant in upholding the dependence of the Judiciary and ensuring the fair and transparent administration of Justice.
CONCLUSION:-
The Court disposed of the writ petition without any further directions, holding that the relief sought by the petitioner was manifestly misconceived .The Court emphasized the importance of the Judiciary in upholding the rule of law and protecting the Constitution and the democracy, and cautioned against the erosion of credibility of the Judiciary in the public mind.
By Koyal Anthony
(Legal Intern at Nyaya Nishtha)