9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 2219 - SC - Indian LawsRole of Chief Justice as the Master of Roster - Seeking this Court to clarify the administrative authority of the Chief Justice of India (Chief Justice) as the Master of Roster and for laying down the procedure and principles to be followed in preparing the Roster for allocation of cases - the submission is that once the Rules are framed, matters should be listed and fixed for hearing as per the provisions, particularly Order III Rules 7 and 8, thereof. As per A.K. Sikri, J. HELD THAT - The Constitution makers reposed great trust in the judiciary by assigning it the powers of judicial review of not only the administrative acts of the Government/Executive but even the legislative acts of the Legislature. In the process, judiciary discharges one of the most important functions, namely, the administration of justice. It does so by upholding the Rule of law and, in the process, protecting the Constitution and the democracy. Our Constitution guarantees free speech, fair trials, personal freedom, personal privacy, equal treatment under the law, human dignity and liberal democratic values - the judiciary even without the sword or the purse, remains the guardian of the Constitution. Its sole strength lies in the public confidence and the trust. The faith of the people is the bed-rock on which the edifice of judicial review and efficacy of the adjudication are founded. Erosion of credibility of the judiciary, in the public mind, for whatever reasons, is greatest threat to the independence of the judiciary - It has also become a regular feature that even laymen, who are constitutionally illiterate, enter such debate and evaluate the outcomes influenced by their emotions, rather than on legal or constitutional principles. The role of the 'Chief Justice' as Master of Roster also assumes much significance. Each 'Chief Justice' performs his role by consultation and consensus, after taking into account various factors including individual Judges' interests and abilities, their specialisation in a particular area, their capacity to handle particular type of cases and many other relevant considerations. However, the exercise of such a power with wisdom has to be left to the 'Chief Justice' who is given the prerogative of the 'Master of the Roster'. It is difficult to accept the prayer of the Petitioner that the expression 'Chief Justice' appearing in the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 be read as 'Collegium' of five senior most Judges for the purpose of allocating the matters. At the same time, we feel that debate generated as a result has served its purpose. As per Ashok Bhushan, J. With regard to procedure and practice of Supreme Court, Article 145 empowers the Supreme Court to frame Rules with the approval of the President. The word practice and procedure of the Court are wide enough to include practice and procedure relating to preparation of roster and allocation of cases. The Rules framed by Supreme Court Under Article 145 specifically refers the Chief Justice in Chapter VI as noted above, the Chief Justice, who is to nominate the bench for hearing every case, appeal or matter. There is no indication in any of the constitutional provisions or Rules framed thereunder that for allocation of cases and formation of benches, Chief Justice should be read as collegium. For reading Chief Justice as collegium, Under Article 124, there was a constitutional basis. The submission that Constitution does not specifically mention Chief Justice to exercise power of allocation of cases and constitution of Benches, hence, Chief Justice is not empowered to do the same, is not a valid submission. Under the constitutional scheme itself as contained in Article 145, the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court is to be regulated by the Rules made by the Supreme Court with approval of the President. Rules framed Under Article 145 specifically empower the Chief Justice to nominate Benches for hearing cases or appeal. Non-containing of any specific provision in the Constitution empowering the Chief Justice to frame the roster to allocate the cases is inconsequential since the entire subject was to be covered by Rules made Under Article 145. The law laid down by this Court is that; the power of framing roster which inheres in the Chief Justice has constitutional and statutory backing and by convention it is treated as prerogative of the Chief Justice. We, thus, cannot import the international practices in the constitutional and statutory scheme of this Court. Petition disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. The administrative authority of the Chief Justice of India as the Master of Roster. 2. The procedure and principles to be followed in preparing the Roster for allocation of cases. 3. Whether the term 'Chief Justice' in the Supreme Court Rules should be interpreted as a 'Collegium' of the first five senior judges. 4. The transparency and fairness in the exercise of the Chief Justice's administrative powers. 5. The adherence to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and Handbook on Practice and Procedure. Detailed Analysis: 1. The Administrative Authority of the Chief Justice of India as the Master of Roster: The judgment reaffirms that the Chief Justice of India (CJI) is the "Master of Roster" and has the exclusive authority to allocate cases to different Benches/Judges of the Supreme Court. This principle is essential for maintaining judicial discipline and decorum. The Court referenced the three-Judge Bench decision in *State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand and Ors.*, which held that the Chief Justice alone has the prerogative to constitute benches and allocate cases. Similarly, the Constitution Bench in *Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India and Anr.* reiterated that the CJI is the Master of Roster, and this principle applies equally to the Supreme Court. 2. The Procedure and Principles to be Followed in Preparing the Roster for Allocation of Cases: The judgment emphasizes that the matters need to be listed and assigned to the Benches in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and the Handbook on Practice and Procedure. The Court underlined that the Chief Justice's power to allocate cases is to be exercised fairly, justly, and transparently, ensuring that the judiciary functions smoothly and efficiently. 3. Whether the Term 'Chief Justice' in the Supreme Court Rules Should be Interpreted as a 'Collegium' of the First Five Senior Judges: The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that the term 'Chief Justice' should be interpreted to mean a 'Collegium' of the five senior-most judges. The judgment clarifies that the rationale behind the Collegium system for the appointment of judges, as established in the Second and Third Judges' cases, cannot be extended to the administrative functions of the Chief Justice. The Court found that such an interpretation would be impractical and could lead to chaos in the day-to-day functioning of the Court. 4. The Transparency and Fairness in the Exercise of the Chief Justice's Administrative Powers: The judgment acknowledges the Petitioner's concern about the potential for bias in the allocation of cases. However, it emphasizes that the Chief Justice, as a high constitutional functionary, is entrusted with this authority to ensure the efficient transaction of the Court's administrative and judicial work. The Court noted that there cannot be a presumption of mistrust in the Chief Justice's exercise of these powers. 5. The Adherence to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and Handbook on Practice and Procedure: The Court agreed with the Petitioner that the listing of matters must strictly adhere to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and the Handbook on Practice and Procedure. It emphasized that the established rules and procedures provide sufficient guidelines for the orderly and transparent functioning of the Court. Conclusion: The Court disposed of the writ petition without issuing any further directions, reaffirming the Chief Justice's role as the Master of Roster and rejecting the proposal to interpret the term 'Chief Justice' as a Collegium. The judgment underlines the importance of adhering to established rules and procedures while recognizing the need for continuous improvement in the judicial system.
|
