Supreme Court says there ‘cannot be any mistrust in the functioning of a high constitutional office of the CJI’.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Wednesday reiterated that the Chief Justice of India has the last word in assigning cases to other benches in the court.
While dismissing a petition that sought to regulate the CJI’s administrative powers to allocate cases, the court said that there “cannot be any mistrust in the functioning of a high constitutional office of the CJI”.
The court’s ruling came in a public interest litigation filed by Asok Pande, a Lucknow-based advocate and president of the Hindu Personal Law Board. It was admitted Monday and the case was listed for judgment Wednesday.
A three-judge bench comprising CJI Misra, justices A.M. Khanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud had admitted the plea Monday and agreed to pass “judicial orders” in a hearing that lasted less than five minutes.
The court’s dismissal of Pande’s plea essentially thwarts another controversial plea on similar grounds filed by former Union law minister Shanti Bhushan and his lawyer-activist son Prashant Bhushan.
Bhushans had written to the court’s registry, saying that since the petition directly involves the CJI and since he is a respondent, he should not hear the case or decide the roster to hear the case.
If the Bhushans’ plea were to be allowed the case could be heard by Justice Chelameswar, the second most senior judge in the apex court. Chelameswar is due to retire on 23 June.
Pande had sought guidelines for a “transparent and codified procedure for the constitution of benches and allocation of cases” in the apex court.
In 2013, the apex court had imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on Pande for filing frivolous PILs. Pande claims to have filed over 200 PILs.
Since the court did not issue any “guidelines”, the ruling would not, however, prohibit future CJIs from regulating the issue on their own. It, however, will be a roadblock for a judge to entertain a plea in court.
The CJI, by virtue of being the administrative head of the court, is the ‘master of the roster’ and has the prerogative to allocate cases to all the other judges. On the judicial side, rulings of all judges, irrespective of seniority have equal value.
There is hardly many people in the country who, being questioned about exercise of authority, would abdicate his power to decide critical issues involving himself in allegations, by others.
In all probability the other judges, considered Constitutionally equal, in all probability, would have devised a procedure equally impersonal and admirable to inspire universal confidence. But the situation reiterating continuance of the same system question by resectable judges, perhaps further provokes lack of confidence in the exsisting procedure in place.
Sad and ominous for the 1.30 bn people!
It is evident that the Registry could not have overriden the CJI’s authority, assigned such a sensitive case to another Bench, acceeding to the petitioners’s plea that it should not be heard by the CJI. However, in light of recent developments, turning down the plea, reiterating the absolute discretion that the term ” Master of the Roster ” implies is unfortunate. It will keep discontent simmering that is not occasioned by personalities or any personal intetest but a deep, principled concern for the credibility of India’s most respected, trusted institution. Succeeding CJIs, the first of whom ought unquestionably to be Justice Gogoi, will have to heal the rift.