ASOK PANDE versus SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THR. ITS REGISTRAR AND ORS. on 11 April 2018

[2018] 3 S.C.R. 337

ASOK PANDE

v.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THR. ITS REGISTRAR ANDORS.

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 147 of 2018)

APRIL 11, 2018

[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR ANDDR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]

Constitution of India:

Arts. 32, 136, 145 – Power of CJI to constitute Benches andallocate work to different Benches – Petitioner seeking mandamusfor evolution of “set procedure” for constituting Benches-three judgeBench in the Court of Chief Justice to consist of Chief Justice andtwo senior-most judges while a Constitution Bench to consist offive senior-most judges; and allotment of cases to different Benchesin this Court – Held: Relief sought is misconceived – Mandamuscannot be issued to direct a body or authority vested with a rulemaking power to make rules or to make them in a particular manner– Supreme Court has been authorised u/Art. 145 to frame rules ofprocedure – Petitioner not entitled to seek a direction that Benchesof this Court be constituted in a particular manner or, that thereshould be separate divisions of this Court – In the allocation ofcases and the constitution of benches, the Chief Justice has anexclusive prerogative – Further, seniority in terms of appointmenthas no bearing on which cases a Judge should hear – Every Judgeappointed to this Court u/Art. 124 is invested with the equal duty ofadjudicating cases which come to the Court and are assigned bythe Chief Justice – In his capacity as a Judge, the Chief Justice isprimus inter pares: the first among equals – In the discharge of hisother functions, the Chief Justice of India occupies a position whichis sui generis – Art. 146 reaffirms the position of the Chief Justiceof India as the head of the institution – As repository of constitutionaltrust, the Chief Justice is an institution in himself – Thus, there cannotbe a presumption of mistrust.

A

B

C

DEF

G

AArt.32 – Initiation of contempt proceedings against the petitioner,whereby he was restrained from entering the High Court – Challengeto, in a writ petition u/Art. 32 – Held: Legality of a judicial ordercannot be questioned in an original proceeding u/Art. 32 – If thepetitioner was aggrieved by a judicial order of the High Court,remedies were available to him u/Art. 136 – Manner in which theBpetitioner sought to cast aspersions on the bench of the High Court,assigned with the hearing of the contempt proceedings againstpetitioner, is unwarranted – Moreover, reckless allegations levelledagainst judges of the High Court in a proceeding where correctnessof the orders passed by the High Court not in issue and necessaryCparties to that proceeding not before the court.

Contempt proceedings were initiated against the petitioner-lawyer, by the Allahabad High Court for making allegations againstseveral High Court Judges. An order was passed restraining hisentry into the premises of the High Court. Aggrieved theDpetitioner, sought issuance of a writ of mandamus to the firstrespondent-Supreme Court of India to evolve the set procedurefor constituting the benches and allotment of jurisdiction todifferent benches in Supreme Court; and also sought issuance ofwrit of mandamus to the second respondent-Allahabad High Courtto evolve set rules with respect to formation of benches andEvesting of jurisdiction to them on the pattern of rules so framedby the Supreme Court.

Dismissing the petition, the Court

Conclusion

Dismissing the petition, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Disapproval is expressed of the manner in whichFthe petitioner has sought to cast aspersions on the bench of theAllahabad High Court which was assigned with the hearing of thecontempt proceedings against the petitioner. What the petitionerhas averred is not based or founded upon any judicial order. Theaspersions which he has cast on the judges of the High Court areunwarranted. Significantly, the correctness of an order passed byGthe High Court in the contempt proceedings initiated against thepetitioner is not in question in the present proceedings. If thepetitioner was aggrieved by a judicial order of the High Court,remedies were available to him under Article 136. As a memberof the Bar, the petitioner should know better than to questionH

the conduct of a judicial proceeding before the High Court in awrit petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. This is yetanother instance of reckless allegations being levelled againstjudges of the High Court in a proceeding where the correctnessof the orders passed by the High Court is not in issue; necessaryparties to that proceeding are not before the court; and thoughthe legality of a judicial order cannot be questioned in an originalproceeding under Article 32. [Para 4] [343-H; 344-A-C]

1.2 In view of this binding elucidation of the authority ofthe Chief Justice of India in *Campaign for Judicial Accountabilityand Reforms v Union of India, the relief which the petitioner seeksis manifestly misconceived. For one thing, it is a well settledprinciple that no mandamus can issue to direct a body or authoritywhich is vested with a rule making power to make rules or tomake them in a particular manner. The Supreme Court has beenauthorised under Article 145 to frame rules of procedure. Amandamus of the nature sought cannot be issued. Similarly, thepetitioner is not entitled to seek a direction that Benches of thisCourt should be constituted in a particular manner or, as heseeks, that there should be separate divisions of this Court. Theformer lies exclusively in the domain of the prerogative powersof the Chief Justice. [Para 11] [350-C-E]

1.3 The relief sought is contrary to legal and constitutionalprinciple, there is a fundamental fallacy in the approach of thepetitioner, which must be set at rest. The petitioner seeks theestablishment of a binding precept under which a three judgeBench in the Court of the Chief Justice must consist of the ChiefJustice and his two senior-most colleagues alone while theConstitution Bench should consist of five senior-most judges (or,as he suggests, three ‘senior-most’ and two ‘junior-most’ judges).There is no constitutional foundation on the basis of which such asuggestion can be accepted. This would intrude into the exclusiveduty and authority of the Chief Justice to constitute benches andto allocate cases to them. Moreover, the petitioner seems toharbour a misconception that certain categories of cases or certaincourts must consist only of the senior-most in terms ofappointment. Every Judge appointed to this Court under Article124 of the Constitution is invested with the equal duty of A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aadjudicating cases which come to the Court and are assigned bythe Chief Justice. Seniority in terms of appointment has no bearingon which cases a Judge should hear. It is a settled position that ajudgment delivered by a Judge speaks for the court (except inthe case of a concurring or dissenting opinion). The Constitutionmakes a stipulation in Article 124(3) for the appointment ofBJudges of the Supreme Court from the High Courts, from theBar and from amongst distinguished jurists. Appointment to theSupreme Court is conditioned upon the fulfilment of thequalifications prescribed for the holding of that office under Article124(3). Once appointed, every Judge of the Court is entitled toCand in fact, duty bound, to hear such cases as are assigned by theChief Justice. Judges drawn from the High Courts are appointedto this Court after long years of service. Members of the Barwho are elevated to this Court similarly are possessed of wideand diverse experience gathered during the course of the years of practise at the Bar. To suggest that any Judge would be moreDcapable of deciding particular cases or that certain categories ofcases should be assigned only to the senior-most among theJudges of the Supreme Court has no foundation in principle orprecedent. To hold otherwise would be to cast a reflection on thecompetence and ability of other judges to deal with all casesEassigned by the Chief Justice notwithstanding the fact that theyhave fulfilled the qualifications mandated by the Constitution forappointment to the office. [Para 12] [350-F-H; 351-A-E]

1.4 The submissions in regard to the constitution ofbenches in the High Courts are, equally lacking in merit. TheFinsinuations sought to be made against judges drawn from thecadre of the district judiciary are disapproved. The Constitutionhas made specific provisions in Article 217(2) for the appointmentof judges to the High Court. Judges of the High Court drawnfrom the Bar or from those who have held judicial office for at least ten years discharge the same functions as judges of theGcourt upon their appointment under Article 217. To suggest thatthere is a distinction between the two is contrary to constitutionaltenets. [Para 13] [351-E-G]

1.5 In his capacity as a Judge, the Chief Justice is primusinter pares: the first among equals. In the discharge of his otherH

functions, the Chief Justice of India occupies a position which issui generis. Article 124(1) postulates that the Supreme Court ofIndia shall consist of a Chief Justice of India and other Judges.Article 146 reaffirms the position of the Chief Justice of India asthe head of the institution. From an institutional perspective theChief Justice is placed at the helm of the Supreme Court. In theallocation of cases and the constitution of benches the ChiefJustice has an exclusive prerogative. As a repository ofconstitutional trust, the Chief Justice is an institution in himself.The authority which is conferred upon the Chief Justice, it mustbe remembered, is vested in a high constitutional functionary.The authority is entrusted to the Chief Justice because such anentrustment of functions is necessary for the efficient transactionof the administrative and judicial work of the Court. The ultimatepurpose behind the entrustment of authority to the Chief Justiceis to ensure that the Supreme Court is able to fulfil and dischargethe constitutional obligations which govern and provide therationale for its existence. The entrustment of functions to theChief Justice as the head of the institution is with the purpose ofsecuring the position of the Supreme Court as an independentsafeguard for the preservation of personal liberty. There cannotbe a presumption of mistrust. The oath of office demands nothingless. [Para 15] [353-A-E]

1.6 Some of the averments made by the petitioner arescandalous. However, it is appropriate to allow the matter to restwith a caution that the petitioner must be more responsible forthe manner in which he seeks to draft pleadings in future filings.[Para 16] [354-A]

State of Rajasthan v Prakash Chand (1998) 1 SCC 1;*Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms vUnion of India (2018) 1 SCC 196 – referred to.

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.147 of 2018.

AB

CDE

F

G

H

AUnder Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

Petitioner-In-Person.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The petitioner, who is aBmember of the Bar, has instituted these proceedings under Article 32 ofthe Constitution, claiming to be “a public spirited person”. He states thathe is a “scholar in the field of the Constitution” and that he has filednearly two hundred petitions in the public interest before the AllahabadHigh Court, Gujarat High Court and in this Court as well. The reliefswhich he seeks are as regards the constitution of Benches of this CourtCand the Allahabad High Court. What is sought in these proceedings isdepicted in the two prayers for relief which are extracted below:

“(a) to issue a writ of mandamus to the first respondent (SupremeCourt of India) to evolve the set Procedure for constituting thebenches and allotment of jurisdiction to different benches inSupreme Court. The Petitioner seeks mandamus to the firstrespondents to have a specific rule in Supreme Court Rules thatthe three judges bench in Chief Justice court shall consist of thechief justice and two senior most judges and the Constitutionalbench shall consist of five senior most judges or three senior mostJudges and two junior most judges. The Petitioner also seeks awrit of mandamus to the first respondent to constitute :

D

E

Supreme Criminal Court

Supreme PIL Court

Supreme Tax Court

F

Supreme Service Court

Supreme Land Dispute Court

Supreme Misc. Matter Court…. Etc.

b. The Petitioner also seeks writ of mandamus to the secondrespondent i.e. Allahabad High Court to evolve set rules withrespect to formation of benches and vesting of jurisdiction to themon the pattern of rules so framed by the Supreme Court. The ruleshould also contain that the bench of Advocate judges will be G

H

constituted with Advocate judges and the bench of service judgescoming from eligibility criteria number one of article 217 (3) ofConstitution with the judges coming from District judiciary notwith Advocate judges.”

2. The petitioner has a litany of grievances, many of which arepersonal to him. The averments contained in the petition indicate that aproceeding was initiated against the petitioner under the Contempt ofCourts Act 1971. The petitioner seems to have a grievance with anorder which was passed restraining his entry into the premises of theHigh Court. The nature of his allegations is evinced in the followingextract:

“For prosecuting the Petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Acton the charge of writing a letter to the Chief Justice against theMisbehaviour of a judge, a Chief Justice ordered the listing of mycase before the bench headed by Sri Sudhir Agrawal J. And hesitting with a judge coming from district judiciary convicted andsentenced me. He sitting with an advocate judges threatened meon the very first date of hearing to restrain my entry in high courtexcept on the date fixed in the contempt case but as the secondjudge was not agree and so he could not pass the order but as thejudge sitting on that also not agree and the order of suspensionfrom practice could not be passed and so he managed the formationof bench with a third judge on the next date. He was a judgecoming from district court. He agreed for passing the order ofsuspension and so the Petitioner was suspended from practiceand his entry in the high court was banned. This happened as inplace of the regular bench assigned the matters of criminalcontempt as per the prevailing roaster, the chief justice nominateda bench headed by Sri Sudhir Agrawal.”

3. The petitioner has then proffered his suggestions about howthe benches of this Court should be constituted. He suggests that thesame principle should be followed in the High Court.

4. We must, at the outset, express our disapproval of the mannerin which the petitioner has sought to cast aspersions on the bench of theAllahabad High Court which was assigned with the hearing of thecontempt proceedings against the petitioner. What the petitioner has A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Aaverred is not based or founded upon any judicial order. The aspersionswhich he has cast on the judges of the High Court are unwarranted.Significantly, the correctness of an order passed by the High Court inthe contempt proceedings initiated against the petitioner is not in questionin the present proceedings. If the petitioner was aggrieved by a judicialorder of the High Court, remedies were available to him under ArticleB136. As a member of the Bar, the petitioner should know better than toquestion the conduct of a judicial proceeding before the High Court in awrit petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. This is yet anotherinstance of reckless allegations being levelled against judges of the HighCourt in a proceeding where the correctness of the orders passed by theCHigh Court is not in issue; necessary parties to that proceeding are notbefore the court; and though the legality of a judicial order cannot bequestioned in an original proceeding under Article 32.

5. We would now deal with the relief which has been sought interms of prayer (a). The petitioner seeks the evolution of a “set procedure”Dfor constituting Benches and allotment of cases to different Benches inthis Court. Second, as part of the same prayer the petitioner seeks aMandamus for the making of a rule, in the Rules of Procedure of thisCourt, to the effect that a three judge Bench in the Court of the ChiefJustice should consist of the Chief Justice and the two senior-most judgeswhile a Constitution Bench should consist of five senior-most judges (orEthree ‘senior-most’ judges and two ‘junior-most’ judges). Third, thepetitioner seeks a bifurcation of this court into what he describes as a“Supreme criminal court”, with similar divisions to hear PIL, tax, service,land disputes and miscellaneous matters (etc.).

6. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 have been notified with theFapproval of the President in pursuance of the provisions of Article 145of the Constitution. Article 145 reads thus:

“145. (1) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament,the Supreme Court may from time to time, with the approval ofthe President, make rules for regulating generally the practiceGand procedure of the Court including—

(a) rules as to the persons practising before the Court; (b) rules as to the procedure for hearing appeals and other matterspertaining to appeals including the time within which appeals tothe Court are to be entered;H

(c) rules as to the proceedings in the Court for the enforcementof any of the rights conferred by Part III; 1[(cc) rules as to the proceedings in the Court under 2[article 139A];]

(d) rules as to the entertainment of appeals under sub-clause (c)of clause (1) of article 134; (e) rules as to the conditions subject to which any judgmentpronounced or order made by the Court may be reviewed and theprocedure for such review including the time within whichapplications to the Court for such review are to be entered; (f) rules as to the costs of and incidental to any proceedings in theCourt and as to the fees to be charged in respect of proceedingstherein; (g) rules as to the granting of bail; (h) rules as to stay of proceedings;

(i) rules providing for the summary determination of any appealwhich appears to the Court to be frivolous or vexatious or broughtfor the purpose of delay; (j) rules as to the procedure for inquiries referred to in clause (1)of article 317.

Rules of Court, etc.

(2) Subject to the provisions of clause (3), rules made under thisarticle may fix the minimum number of Judges who are to sit forany purpose, and may provide for the powers of single Judgesand Division Courts.

(3) The minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purposeof deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as tothe interpretation of this Constitution or for the purpose of hearingany reference under article 143 shall be five:

Provided that, where the Court hearing an appeal under any ofthe provisions of this Chapter other than article 132 consists ofless than five Judges and in the course of the hearing of the appealthe Court is satisfied that the appeal involves a substantial question A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aof law as to the interpretation of this Constitution the determinationof which is necessary for the disposal of the appeal, such Courtshall refer the question for opinion to a Court constituted as requiredby this clause for the purpose of deciding any case involving sucha question and shall on receipt of the opinion dispose of the appealin conformity with such opinion.B

(4) No judgment shall be delivered by the Supreme Court save inopen Court, and no report shall be made under article 143 save inaccordance with an opinion also delivered in open Court.

(5) No judgment and no such opinion shall be delivered by theCSupreme Court save with the concurrence of a majority of theJudges present at the hearing of the case, but nothing in this clauseshall be deemed to prevent a Judge who does not concur fromdelivering a dissenting judgment or opinion.”

7. Order VI of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 deals with theDconstitution of Division Courts and powers of a Single Judge. Rules 1, 2and 4 provide thus:

“1. Subject to the other provisions of these rules every cause,appeal or matter shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not lessthan two Judges nominated by the Chief Justice.

E2. Where in the course of the hearing of any cause, appeal orother proceeding the Bench considers that the matter should bedealt with by a larger Bench, it shall refer the matter to the ChiefJustice, who shall thereupon constitute such a Bench for the hearingof it.

…

F

4. If a Bench of less than three Judges, hearing a cause, appeal ormatter, is of the opinion that the accused should be sentenced todeath it shall refer the matter to the Chief Justice who shallthereupon constitute a Bench of not less than three Judges forhearing it.”GRule 1 indicates that it is the Chief Justice who is to nominate the Judgeswho would constitute a Bench to hear a cause, appeal or matter. Wherea reference has been made to a larger Bench, the Bench making thereference is required to refer the matter to the Chief Justice who willconstitute a Bench.H

8. Order XXXVIII of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 deals withapplications for enforcement of fundamental rights under Article 32.Rule (1) of Order XXXVIII provides thus:

“(1) Every petition under article 32 of the Constitution shall be inwriting and shall be heard by a Division Court of not less than fiveJudges provided that a petition which does not raise a substantialquestion of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution may beheard and decided by a Division Court of less than five Judges,and, during vacation, by the Vacation Judge sitting singly.

(2) All interlocutory and miscellaneous applications connected witha petition under article 32 of the Constitution, may be heard anddecided by a Division Court of less than five Judges, and, duringvacation, by the Vacation Judge sitting singly, notwithstanding thatin the petition a substantial question of law as to the interpretationof the Constitution is raised.”

Rules 12 deals with public interest litigation. Rule 12 is extractedbelow:

“12. (1) A public Interest Litigation Petition may commence inany of the following manners:

(a) as a suo moto petition in pursuance of the order of the ChiefJustice or Judge of the Court.

(b) in pursuance of an order of the Chief Justice or a Judgenominated by the Chief Justice on a letter or representation.

(c) by an order of the Court to treat a petition as a Public InterestLitigation Petition.

(d) by presentation of a petition in the Court.

(2) In a petition filed under clause (d) of sub-rule (1) the petitionershall

(i) disclose:

(a) his full name, complete postal address, e-mail address, phonenumber, proof regarding personal identification, occupation andannual income, PAN number and National Unique Identity Cardnumber, if any; A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(b) the facts constituting the cause of action;

(c) the nature of injury caused or likely to be caused to the public;(d) the nature and extent of personal interest, if any, of the petitioner(s); B(e) details regarding any civil, criminal or revenue litigation,involving the petitioner or any of the petitioners, which has orcould have a legal nexus with the issue (s) involved in the PublicInterest Litigation; and (f) whether the concerned Government Authority was moved forCrelief (s) sought in the petition and if so, with what result.

(ii) file and affidavit stating that there is no personal gain, privatemotive or oblique reason in filing the Public Interest Litigation.

(3) The Court may impose exemplary costs on the petitioner (s) ifit finds that the petition was frivolous or instituted with oblique orDmala fide motive or lacks bona fides.”

9. The position of the Chief Justice of a High Court was elucidatedin a judgment of a three judge Bench of this Court in State of Rajasthanv Prakash Chand[1]. During the course of the judgment the followingbroad conclusions were formulated in regard to the position of the ChiefEJustice:

“(1) That the administrative control of the High Court vests in theChief Justice alone. On the judicial side, however, he is only thefirst amongst the equals.

(2) That the Chief Justice is the Master of the Roster.FHe alone has the prerogative to constitute Benches of the courtand allocate cases to the Benches so constituted.

(3) That the puisne Judges can only do that work as is allotted tothem by the Chief Justice or under his directions.

(4) That till any determination made by the Chief Justice lasts, noJudge who is to sit singly can sit in a Division Bench and no DivisionBench can be split up by the Judges constituting the Benchthemselves and one or both the Judges constituting such Benchsit singly and take up any other kind of judicial business not G

1 (1998) 1 SCC 1H

otherwise assigned to them by or under the directions of the ChiefJustice.

(5) That the Chief Justice can take congnizance of an applicationlaid before him under Rule 55 (supra) and refer a case to thelarger bench for its disposal and he can exercise this jurisdictioneven in relation to a part-heard case.

(6) That the puisne Judges cannot “pick and choose” any casepending in the High Court and assign the same to himself orthemselves for disposal without appropriate orders of the ChiefJustice.

(7) That no Judge or Judges can give directions to the Registryfor listing any case before him or them which runs counter to thedirections given by the Chief Justice.”

10. Recently, a Constitution Bench of this Court in Campaign forJudicial Accountability and Reforms v Union of India[2]held that theprinciple which was noticed and recognised in the decision of this courtin Prakash Chand (supra) in relation to the jurisdiction and authority ofthe Chief Justice of the High Court “must apply proprio vigore as regardsthe power of the Chief Justice of India”. The position of the Chief Justicewas reiterated with the following observations:

“The aforesaid position though stated as regards the High Court,we are absolutely certain that the said principle is applicable tothe Supreme Court. We are disposed to think so. Unless such aposition is clearly stated, there will be utter confusion. Be it noted,this has been also the convention of this Court, and the conventionhas been so because of the law. We have to make it clear withoutany kind of hesitation that the convention is followed because ofthe 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. Needless tosay, neither a two-Judge Bench nor a three-Judge Bench canallocate the matter to themselves or direct the composition forconstitution of a Bench. To elaborate, there cannot be any directionto the Chief Justice of India as to who shall be sitting on theBench or who shall take up the matter as that touches the A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A

composition of the Bench. We reiterate such an order cannot bepassed. It is not countenanced in law and not permissible.

An institution has to function within certain parameters and that iswhy there are precedents, rules and conventions. As far as thecomposition of Benches is concerned, we accept the principlesBstated in Prakash Chand [State of Rajasthan v. PrakashChand, (1998) 1 SCC 1] , which were stated in the context of theHigh Court, and clearly state that the same shall squarely apply tothe Supreme Court and there cannot be any kind of command ororder directing the Chief Justice of India to constitute a particularBench.”

C

C

11. In view of this binding elucidation of the authority of the ChiefJustice of India, the relief which the petitioner seeks is manifestlymisconceived. For one thing, it is a well settled principle that no mandamuscan issue to direct a body or authority which is vested with a rule makingpower to make rules or to make them in a particular manner. The SupremeDCourt has been authorised under Article 145 to frame rules of procedure.A mandamus of the nature sought cannot be issued. Similarly, the petitioneris not entitled to seek a direction that Benches of this Court should beconstituted in a particular manner or, as he seeks, that there should beseparate divisions of this Court. The former lies exclusively in the domainEof the prerogative powers of the Chief Justice.

12. Quite apart from the fact that the relief sought is contrary tolegal and constitutional principle, there is a fundamental fallacy in theapproach of the petitioner, which must be set at rest. The petitionerseeks the establishment of a binding precept under which a three judgeBench in the Court of the Chief Justice must consist of the Chief JusticeFand his two senior-most colleagues alone while the Constitution Benchshould consist of five senior-most judges (or, as he suggests, three ‘senior-most’ and two ‘junior-most’ judges). There is no constitutional foundationon the basis of which such a suggestion can be accepted. For one thing,as we have noticed earlier, this would intrude into the exclusive duty andGauthority of the Chief Justice to constitute benches and to allocate casesto them. Moreover, the petitioner seems to harbour a misconception thatcertain categories of cases or certain courts must consist only of thesenior-most in terms of appointment. Every Judge appointed to this Courtunder Article 124 of the Constitution is invested with the equal duty of H

adjudicating cases which come to the Court and are assigned by theChief Justice. Seniority in terms of appointment has no bearing on whichcases a Judge should hear. It is a settled position that a judgment deliveredby a Judge speaks for the court (except in the case of a concurring ordissenting opinion). The Constitution makes a stipulation in Article 124(3)for the appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court from the HighCourts, from the Bar and from amongst distinguished jurists. Appointmentto the Supreme Court is conditioned upon the fulfilment of thequalifications prescribed for the holding of that office under Article 124(3).Once appointed, every Judge of the Court is entitled to and in fact, dutybound, to hear such cases as are assigned by the Chief Justice. Judgesdrawn from the High Courts are appointed to this Court after long yearsof service. Members of the Bar who are elevated to this Court similarlyare possessed of wide and diverse experience gathered during the courseof the years of practise at the Bar. To suggest that any Judge would bemore capable of deciding particular cases or that certain categories ofcases should be assigned only to the senior-most among the Judges ofthe Supreme Court has no foundation in principle or precedent. To holdotherwise would be to cast a reflection on the competence and ability ofother judges to deal with all cases assigned by the Chief Justicenotwithstanding the fact that they have fulfilled the qualifications mandatedby the Constitution for appointment to the office.

13. The submissions which have been made by the petitioner inregard to the constitution of benches in the High Courts are, in view ofthe above discussion, equally lacking in merit. We emphatically disapproveof the insinuations sought to be made against judges drawn from thecadre of the district judiciary. The Constitution has made specificprovisions in Article 217(2) for the appointment of judges to the HighCourt. Judges of the High Court drawn from the Bar or from those whohave held judicial office for at least ten years discharge the same functionsas judges of the court upon their appointment under Article 217. Tosuggest that there is a distinction between the two is contrary toconstitutional tenets.

14. The Chartered High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay, Calcuttaand Madras have a long history of over a hundred and fifty years. Eachof them has marked its sesquicentennial. Many High Courts are not farbehind in vintage. Some are of a recent origin. Over the course of theirjudicial history, High Courts have evolved conventions in matters ABCD

E

F

G

H

Agoverning practice and procedure. These conventions provide guidanceto the Chief Justice in the allocation of work, including in the constitutionof benches. The High Courts periodically publish a roster of work underthe authority of the Chief Justice. The roster indicates the constitution ofBenches, Division and Single. The roster will indicate the subject matterof the cases assigned to each bench. Different High Courts have theirBown traditions in regard to the period for which the published roster willcontinue, until a fresh roster is notified. Individual judges have their ownstrengths in terms of specialisation. The Chief Justice of the High Courthas to bear in mind the area of specialisation of each judge, while deciding upon the allocation of work. However, specialisation is one of severalCaspects which weigh with the Chief Justice. A newly appointed judgemay be rotated in a variety of assignments to enable the judge to acquireexpertise in diverse branches of law. Together with the need forspecialisation, there is a need for judges to have a broad-basedunderstanding of diverse areas of law. In deciding upon the allocation of work and the constitution of benches, Chief Justices have to determineDthe number of benches which need to be assigned to a particular subjectmatter keeping in view the inflow of work and arrears. The Chief Justiceof the High Court will have regard to factors such as the pendency ofcases in a given area, the need to dispose of the oldest cases, prioritisingcriminal cases where the liberty of the subject is involved and the overallEstrength, in terms of numbers, of the court. Different High Courts haveassigned priorities to certain categories of cases such as those involvingsenior citizens, convicts who are in jail and women litigants. Thesepriorities are considered while preparing the roster. Impending retirementshave to be borne in mind since the assignment given to a judge who isdue to demit office would have to be entrusted to another Bench whenFthe vacancy arises. These are some of the considerations which areborne in mind. The Chief Justice is guided by the need to ensure theorderly functioning of the court and the expeditious disposal of cases.The publication of the roster on the websites of the High Courts providesnotice to litigants and lawyers about the distribution of judicial work underGthe authority of the Chief Justice. This Court was constituted in 1950. Inthe preparation of the roster and in the distribution of judicial work, someof the conventions which are adopted in the High Courts are also relevant,subject to modifications having regard to institutional requirements.

15. Underlying the submission that the constitution of BenchesHand the allocation of cases by the Chief Justice must be regulated by a

procedure cast in iron is the apprehension that absent such a procedurethe power will be exercised arbitrarily. In his capacity as a Judge, theChief Justice is primus inter pares: the first among equals. In thedischarge of his other functions, the Chief Justice of India occupies aposition which is sui generis. Article 124(1) postulates that the SupremeCourt of India shall consist of a Chief Justice of India and other Judges.Article 146[3] reaffirms the position of the Chief Justice of India as thehead of the institution. From an institutional perspective the Chief Justiceis placed at the helm of the Supreme Court. In the allocation of casesand the constitution of benches the Chief Justice has an exclusiveprerogative. As a repository of constitutional trust, the Chief Justice isan institution in himself. The authority which is conferred upon the ChiefJustice, it must be remembered, is vested in a high constitutionalfunctionary. The authority is entrusted to the Chief Justice because suchan entrustment of functions is necessary for the efficient transaction ofthe administrative and judicial work of the Court. The ultimate purposebehind the entrustment of authority to the Chief Justice is to ensure thatthe Supreme Court is able to fulfil and discharge the constitutionalobligations which govern and provide the rationale for its existence. Theentrustment of functions to the Chief Justice as the head of the institution,is with the purpose of securing the position of the Supreme Court as anindependent safeguard for the preservation of personal liberty. Therecannot be a presumption of mistrust. The oath of office demands nothingless.

3 146. (1) Appointments of officers and servants of the Supreme Court shall be madeby the Chief Justice of India or such other Judge or officer of the Court as he maydirect:

Provided that the President may by rule require that in such cases as may be specifiedin the rule, no person not already attached to the Court shall be appointed to any officeconnected with the Court, save after consultation with the Union Public ServiceCommission.

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the conditions of serviceof officers and servants of the Supreme Court shall be such as may be prescribed byrules made by the Chief Justice of India or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorized by the Chief Justice of India to make rules for the purpose:

Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances leave or pensions, require the approval of the President.

(3) The administrative expenses of the Supreme Court, including all salaries, allowancesand pensions payable to or in respect of the officers and servants of the Court, shall becharged upon the Consolidated Fund of India, and any fees or other moneys taken bythe Court shall form part of that Fund.

ABC

D

E

F

G

H

A16. Some of the averments which have been made by the petitionerare scandalous. However, we have considered it appropriate to allowthe matter to rest with a caution that the petitioner must be more responsiblefor the manner in which he seeks to draft pleadings in future filings.

17. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the petition. TheBwrit petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Nidhi Jain

Petition dismissed.

C

D

E

F

G

H