Chief Justice’s Authority: Supreme Court Settles Roster Allocation in Judicial Accountability Case (2017)

LEGAL ISSUE: Authority of the Chief Justice in allocating cases and constituting benches. CASE TYPE: Public Interest Litigation (Constitutional Law). Case Name: Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs. Union of India and Another. Judgment Date: November 10, 2017

Can a two-judge bench direct the Chief Justice of India on how to constitute a bench? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question regarding the administrative authority of the Chief Justice of India. This case clarifies the Chief Justice’s role as the master of the roster, with the exclusive power to allocate cases and form benches. The judgment was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice R.K. Agrawal, Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Amitava Roy, and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar. The opinion was unanimous.

Case Background

The case originated from a writ petition filed by the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms. The matter was initially listed before a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court. During the hearing, the two-judge bench referred the matter to a Constitution Bench. Subsequently, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) sought to be impleaded as a party to assist the Court. The Chief Justice of India then constituted a five-judge Constitution Bench to hear the matter.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The matter was initially before a two-judge bench. This bench, noting the importance of the issue, referred it to a larger Constitution Bench. This referral was made because the bench felt the matter needed a more comprehensive consideration. The Chief Justice of India then constituted a five-judge bench to address the issue.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered several key legal provisions and precedents. These include Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which allows a bench to refer a matter to the Chief Justice for a larger bench. The Court also considered Article 145(2) and (3) of the Constitution of India, which deal with the rules of the court and the minimum number of judges required for certain cases.

Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 states:
“Where in the course of the hearing of any cause, appeal or other proceeding, the Bench considers that the matter should be dealt with by a larger Bench, it shall refer the matter to the Chief Justice, who shall thereupon constitute such a Bench for the hearing of it.”

Article 145(2) and (3) of the Constitution of India states:
“145. Rules of Court, etc.-
(1)………..…
(2) Subject to the provisions of clause (2), rules made under this article may fix the minimum number of Judges who are to sit for any purpose, and may provide for the powers of single Judges and Division Courts.
(3) The minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution or for the purpose of hearing any reference under Article 143 shall be five:
Provided that, where the Court hearing an appeal under any of the provisions of this chapter other than Article 132 consists of less than five Judges and in the course of the hearing of the appeal the Court is satisfied that the appeal involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution the determination of which is necessary for the disposal of the appeal, such Court shall refer the question for opinion to a Court constituted as required by this clause for the purpose of deciding any case involving such a question and shall on receipt of the opinion dispose of the appeal in conformity with such opinion.”

Arguments

The Additional Solicitor General, along with other senior counsels, argued that the Chief Justice of India, like the Chief Justice of a High Court, is the master of the roster. They cited the judgment in State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand and Others (1998) 1 SCC 1, which established this principle for High Courts. They contended that the same principle should apply to the Supreme Court to ensure the smooth functioning of the institution.

The counsels also referred to Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1, which stated that a two-judge bench should follow a three-judge bench decision. If the two-judge bench disagrees, it should refer the matter to a three-judge bench, and then potentially to a five-judge bench.

The counsels argued that the Chief Justice’s authority to constitute benches and allocate cases is essential for maintaining judicial discipline and decorum. They also contended that no bench can direct the Chief Justice on the composition of benches.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed was:

1. Whether the Chief Justice of India is the master of the roster, with the authority to constitute benches and allocate cases.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand and Others (1998) 1 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India): This case established that the Chief Justice of a High Court is the master of the roster. The Supreme Court applied this principle to the Chief Justice of India.
• Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India): This case outlined the procedure for a two-judge bench disagreeing with a three-judge bench decision. It emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and hierarchy.
• Order VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013: This rule allows a bench to refer a matter to the Chief Justice for a larger bench.
• Article 145(2) and (3) of the Constitution of India: These provisions deal with the rules of the court and the minimum number of judges required for certain cases.

Judgment

The Supreme Court explicitly stated that the principle in Prakash Chand* (1998) 1 SCC 1, which established the Chief Justice of the High Court as the master of the roster, applies equally to the Chief Justice of India. The Court emphasized that this principle is essential for the smooth functioning of the institution and maintaining judicial discipline.

The Court reiterated that no two-judge or three-judge bench can allocate matters to themselves or direct the composition of a bench. The Court stated that any order contrary to this principle would be ineffective and not binding on the Chief Justice of India.

The court held that “the convention is followed because of the principles of law and because of judicial discipline and decorum. Once the Chief Justice is stated to be the master of the roster, he alone has the prerogative to constitute Benches.”

The court further held that “there cannot be any direction to the Chief Justice of India as to who shall be sitting on the Bench or who shall take up the matter as that touches the composition of the Bench. We reiterate such an order cannot be passed. It is not countenanced in law and not permissible.”

The court also held that “no Judge can take up the matter on his own, unless allocated by the Chief Justice of India, as he is the master of the roster.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by the need to maintain the administrative authority of the Chief Justice of India. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline, hierarchy, and the smooth functioning of the institution. The Court also relied on established precedents and constitutional provisions to support its decision.

Key Takeaways

• The Chief Justice of India is the master of the roster.
• The Chief Justice has the sole authority to constitute benches and allocate cases.
• No other bench can direct the Chief Justice on the composition of benches.
• This decision reinforces the administrative authority of the Chief Justice of India.
• It ensures the smooth functioning of the Supreme Court.

Directions

The Court directed that the present writ petition be listed before the appropriate bench to be allocated by the Chief Justice of India.

Development of Law

The judgment reaffirms the principle that the Chief Justice of India is the master of the roster, extending the principle established for High Courts in Prakash Chand to the Supreme Court. This clarifies the administrative authority of the Chief Justice and ensures the smooth functioning of the institution.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs. Union of India and Another definitively establishes the Chief Justice of India as the master of the roster. This decision reinforces the Chief Justice’s administrative authority, ensuring the smooth functioning of the Supreme Court and maintaining judicial discipline.