Supreme Court Upholds Chief Justice’s Roster Authority in Judicial Bribery Case: Kamini Jaiswal vs. Union of India (2017)

Can a judicial order dictate the composition of a bench in the Supreme Court? This question arose in a case involving allegations of judicial bribery. The Supreme Court of India, in Kamini Jaiswal vs. Union of India & Anr., addressed the issue of whether a division bench could order the formation of a specific bench, thus impacting the Chief Justice’s administrative authority. The judgment, delivered on November 14, 2017, by a three-judge bench of Justices R.K. Agrawal, Arun Mishra, and A.M. Khanwilkar, with Justice Arun Mishra authoring the opinion, firmly established the Chief Justice of India’s prerogative as the master of the roster.

Case Background

The case began with two identically worded writ petitions filed by the Commission for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, an advocate and member of CJAR. These petitions sought a Special Investigation Team (SIT), headed by a retired Chief Justice of India, to investigate a CBI case. The CBI case involved allegations of corruption and conspiracy related to a medical college, Prasad Education Trust, and implicated a retired High Court judge.

The FIR alleged that the retired judge was negotiating through middlemen to secure a favorable order in a case pending before the Supreme Court. This led to concerns about the integrity of the judiciary and prompted the petitioners to seek an independent investigation. The petitioners argued that the CBI, being under government control, could not be trusted to conduct an impartial investigation in a case involving high-ranking judicial officials.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The writ petition filed by CJAR was listed before a bench presided by Justice A.K. Sikri, who then referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders. Simultaneously, a similar petition was filed by Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and was mentioned before Court No. 2. Court No. 2, on November 9, 2017, ordered that the matter be heard by a Constitution Bench of the first five senior-most judges of the court. This order was passed after the matter was mentioned by Shri Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel. This created a conflict with the administrative powers of the Chief Justice, who is traditionally the master of the roster.

The conflict between the judicial order of Court No. 2 and the administrative authority of the Chief Justice led to the matter being placed before a Constitution Bench. This bench clarified the position of law, stating that the Chief Justice of India is the master of the roster. The Constitution Bench also held that a judicial order cannot dictate the composition of a bench.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court relied on its previous judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand & Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 1, which established the principle that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. This case held that the Chief Justice alone has the prerogative to constitute benches and allocate cases. The Court reiterated that this principle applies to the Supreme Court as well.

The Court also considered Article 144 of the Constitution of India, which states that all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. The petitioners argued that this article makes the orders of the Supreme Court binding even on the Chief Justice. However, the Court clarified that this article does not override the Chief Justice’s administrative authority to allocate cases.

The court also referred to Article 145(5) of the Constitution, which states that the majority opinion is the law.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that the FIR casts a cloud on the judiciary at the highest level. They sought an SIT headed by a retired Chief Justice of India for an impartial investigation, not an agency controlled by the government.
• The petitioners contended that since the matter was heard by a bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice should not deal with the present petition, either judicially or administratively.
• They argued that the judicial order passed by Court No. 2 on 9.11.2017, directing the matter to be heard by the five senior-most judges, should prevail and not be overridden by the administrative decision of the Chief Justice.
• The petitioners submitted that Article 144 of the Constitution renders it impermissible for a different Bench of the Supreme Court, even if it is a Bench of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, to overrule an order passed by another Bench of the Supreme Court.
• The petitioners also requested Justice A.M. Khanwilkar to recuse himself from the case, as he was part of the bench that heard the Prasad Education Trust matter.
• Ms. Kamini Jaiswal argued that a member of an organization is entitled to exercise her right separately in her own right to file a petition separate from the organization.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Attorney General for India argued that the petition was unnecessary and cast unwarranted doubt on the entire system. He stated that the actions of a retired judge should not bring the entire judiciary into disrepute.
• The Additional Solicitor General contended that filing two successive petitions with similar reliefs was improper and amounted to forum hunting.
• The respondents argued that there was no urgency to file a second petition and seek its hearing by Court No.2 on the same day when a similar matter was already listed before another bench.
• The respondents submitted that the Chief Justice of India is the master of the roster and has the prerogative to constitute benches.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the Bench constituted by the Chief Justice of India could hear the matter, considering a prior judicial order directing the matter to be heard by the five senior-most judges.
2. Whether the judicial order passed by Court No.2 on 9.11.2017 could be overridden by the administrative decision of the Chief Justice of India.
3. Whether the recusal of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar was required due to his previous involvement in the matter related to Prasad Education Trust.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon:

• State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand & Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 1 – This case established that the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and has the prerogative to constitute benches. (Supreme Court of India)
• Dr. D C Saxena v. Chief Justice of India (1996) 5 SCC 216 – This case held that it is the duty of the Chief Justice to assign judicial work to brother judges and that this does not make him a judge in his own cause. (Supreme Court of India)
• K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655 – This case laid down the procedure for registering an FIR against a judge of the High Court or Supreme Court. (Supreme Court of India)
• Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 388 – This case was cited by the petitioner to argue that orders passed by the Supreme Court are binding, even upon the Chief Justice of India. (Supreme Court of India)
• Bradley v. Fisher 80 US 335 (1871)– This case was cited to show that no action will lie against a judge for any acts done or words spoken in his judicial capacity in a court of justice. (United States Supreme Court)
• Shamsher Singh Bedi v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana (1996) 7 SCC 99 – This case held that an advocate cannot escape responsibility for scandalous remarks made in a petition on the ground that he drafted the same in his/her personal capacity. (Supreme Court of India)
• Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1988) 3 SCC 255 – This case dealt with a PIL petition that was filed with the intention of mudslinging against the advocates, Supreme Court and other constitutional institutions. (Supreme Court of India)
• R. K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106 – This case observed that the purity of the court proceedings has to be maintained and the court has the right to protect itself. (Supreme Court of India)
• Leila David v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 10 SCC 337 – This case dealt with the dismissal of a petition with scandalous remarks against the High Court judges. (Supreme Court of India)
• Amrik Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1971) 3 SCC 215 – This case observed that scandalous allegations cannot be made against the Judges. (Supreme Court of India)
• Bal Kishan Giri v. State of U.P. (2014) 7 SCC 280 – This case dealt with the contempt of court for making allegations that the accused had links with the High Court judges. (Supreme Court of India)
• Union of India & Ors. v. M/s. CIPLA Ltd. & Anr. (2017) 5 SCC 262 – This case discussed various categories of forum shopping. (Supreme Court of India)
• Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 611 – This case laid down that the reasonableness of the apprehension or bias in the mind of the party has to be seen. (Supreme Court of India)
• Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India (2016) 5 SCC 808 – This case considered the maxim nemo judex in causa sua, that no man is to be judge in his own cause. (Supreme Court of India)

Legal Provisions Considered:

• Article 144 of the Constitution of India – All authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.
• Article 145(5) of the Constitution of India – The majority opinion is the law.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Chief Justice of India’s authority as the master of the roster. The Court held that the judicial order passed by Court No. 2 was ineffective and that the Chief Justice has the prerogative to constitute benches. The Court also rejected the plea for the recusal of Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, finding no conflict of interest.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand & Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 1, reiterating the Chief Justice’s authority over the roster.
• The Court relied on Dr. D C Saxena v. Chief Justice of India (1996) 5 SCC 216, stating that the Chief Justice’s duty to assign judicial work does not make him a judge in his own cause.
• The Court also cited K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 655, to emphasize the procedure for registering an FIR against a judge.
• The Court distinguished Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra & Anr. (2002) 4 SCC 388, clarifying that Article 144 does not override the Chief Justice’s administrative powers.
• The Court relied on Bradley v. Fisher 80 US 335 (1871), to show that no action will lie against a judge for any acts done or words spoken in his judicial capacity in a court of justice.
• The Court relied on Shamsher Singh Bedi v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana (1996) 7 SCC 99, to show that an advocate cannot escape responsibility for scandalous remarks made in a petition on the ground that he drafted the same in his/her personal capacity.
• The Court relied on Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (1988) 3 SCC 255, to show that a PIL petition with the intention of mudslinging against the advocates, Supreme Court and other constitutional institutions is contemptuous.
• The Court relied on R. K. Anand v. Delhi High Court (2009) 8 SCC 106, to show that the purity of the court proceedings has to be maintained and the court has the right to protect itself.
• The Court relied on Leila David v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 10 SCC 337, to show that a petition with scandalous remarks against the High Court judges is contemptuous.
• The Court relied on Amrik Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1971) 3 SCC 215, to show that scandalous allegations cannot be made against the Judges.
• The Court relied on Bal Kishan Giri v. State of U.P. (2014) 7 SCC 280, to show that allegations that the accused had links with the High Court judges is contemptuous.
• The Court relied on Union of India & Ors. v. M/s. CIPLA Ltd. & Anr. (2017) 5 SCC 262, to discuss the various categories of forum shopping.
• The Court distinguished Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 611, holding that there was no reasonable basis to infer bias.
• The Court distinguished Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India (2016) 5 SCC 808, holding that there was no interest of the judge in the subject matter.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and upholding the established principle of the Chief Justice’s authority as the master of the roster. The Court emphasized that the judicial system cannot be brought into disrepute based on unfounded allegations. The Court also highlighted the importance of judicial discipline and decorum, stating that the Chief Justice’s prerogative to constitute benches is essential for the smooth functioning of the court.

The Court was also critical of the petitioners’ attempt at forum shopping, noting that the filing of two successive petitions was improper and aimed at avoiding a particular bench. The Court strongly deprecated the practice of making scandalous remarks against the judiciary and attempting to influence the composition of benches.

The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal principles and precedents, with a smaller percentage based on the factual aspects of the case. This shows that the court was more concerned with upholding the legal framework than with the specific facts of the case.

Key Takeaways

• The Chief Justice of India is the master of the roster and has the sole prerogative to constitute benches and allocate cases.
• A judicial order cannot dictate the composition of a bench, as this is an administrative function of the Chief Justice.
• Filing successive petitions with similar reliefs to avoid a particular bench is considered forum hunting and is strongly deprecated.
• Making scandalous remarks against the judiciary and attempting to influence the composition of benches is improper and can amount to contempt of court.
• Judges should not be asked to recuse themselves based on unfounded allegations or perceived conflicts of interest.

This judgment reinforces the administrative authority of the Chief Justice of India and emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial system. It also serves as a warning against forum shopping and making unfounded allegations against the judiciary.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Chief Justice of India is the master of the roster and has the sole prerogative to constitute benches and allocate cases. This judgment reaffirms the position of law as laid down in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand & Ors. (1998) 1 SCC 1 and clarifies that judicial orders cannot override the Chief Justice’s administrative authority.

Conclusion

In Kamini Jaiswal vs. Union of India & Anr., the Supreme Court firmly established the Chief Justice of India’s authority as the master of the roster. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that a judicial order cannot dictate the composition of a bench and that the Chief Justice has the prerogative to allocate cases. The judgment also condemned forum shopping and the making of scandalous remarks against the judiciary. This case is a landmark ruling that reinforces the administrative authority of the Chief Justice and protects the integrity of the judicial system.