Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms V. Union of India and Another

Author: Aamish Priyam, Student, SS Jain Subodh Law College, Jaipur

Edited by: Gaurav Katiyar, Student, University of Lucknow

1. ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE (not less than 150 words and more than 250 words)

In the case of Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms V. Union of India and Another, the supreme court clarified the power and authority of the Chief Justice of India in constituting benches, allocating cases and maintaining the roster within the Supreme Court. This Judgement is significant as it clarifies the power and authority of Chief Justice of India as the master of roster. He alone has the power to constitute benches of the court and allocate cases to those benches. Neither a two-Judge Bench nor a three-Judge Bench can allocate the cases to themselves or direct the composition for constitution of a Bench. There cannot be any kind of command or order directing the Chief Justice of India to constitute a particular Bench.

Keywords: Authority, Constitutional Bench, Chief Justice, Power, Roster

1. CASE DETAILS

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The Judgement arise from the confusion of the power of Chief Justice to constituting benches, allocating cases and maintaining the roster within the Supreme Court.

The “roster of court” refers to list that the judges will be handling in which court. It is a way to organize and assign cases to different judges, ensuring that the workload is distributed properly and that each case is heard by the appropriate judge or panel of judges.

1. FACTS OF THE CASE
2. i) Procedural Background of the Case

Earlier the case was before a two-Judge Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan.

During the hearing, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel, brought to the attention of the Bench an order dated 09.11.2017 passed in another case (W.P(Crl.) No.176/2017) referring the matter to a Constitutional Bench.

The Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) also expressed its desire to be included as a party respondent in the case, which was allowed by the Court.

The Bench directed that the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders to list the case.

Subsequently, the Chief Justice of India constituted a Constitutional Bench comprising of Chief Justice, R.K. Agrawal, Arun Mishra, Amitava Roy and A.M. Khanwilkar to hear the case.

1. ii) Factual Background of the Case
   1. N/A
2. LEGAL ISSUES RAISED
3. What is the power and authority of the Chief Justice of India in constituting benches, allocating cases and maintaining the roster within the Supreme Court?
4. PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Petitioner submitted that (N/A)

1. RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for Respondent submitted that as per the judgment rendered by the three-Judge Bench in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand and Others (1998) 1 SCC 1, the Chief Justice of the High Court is the master of the roster and there is no justification not to treat the Chief Justice of India, who is the Chief Justice of the Apex Court, to have the same power. If the same principles are not followed, the institution cannot function.

Respondents also stated the Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which says while hearing any cause, appeal or other proceedings, if the judges think that the matter should be heard by a larger group of judges, they will refer it to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice will then form a larger group of judges to hear the case.

Respondent also drawn the court attention to the authority in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1, wherein it has been held that if two judge bench disagree with a decision made by three judges bench. They will sent the matter to a group of five judges bench. Normally, two judges bench should follow the decision made by three judges bench. But if two judges believe that the earlier decision by three judges is wrong then they should first send the matter to another group of three judges bench explaining why they disagree with the judgement given. If this new bench of three judges also thinks the earlier decision is wrong, then it can be sent to a group of five judges bench.

1. JUDGEMENT
   1. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Chief Justice of India is the master of roster. He alone has the power to constitute benches of the court and allocate cases to those benches. Neither a two-Judge Bench nor a three-Judge Bench can allocate the cases to themselves or direct the composition for constitution of a Bench. There cannot be any kind of command or order directing the Chief Justice of India to constitute a particular Bench.

1. OBITER DICTA (IF ANY)
   1.  
2. CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Judgement highlights the importance of power of chief justice of India as a master of roster, his power to constitute benches and allocating cases to those benches.

The power of Chief Justice is ultimate constituting benches, allocating cases and maintaining the roster within the Supreme Court if not then it will give rise to utter confusion.

1. REFERENCES
   1. Important Cases Referred
      1. State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand and Others
      2. Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others
   2. Important Statutes Referred