Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The petition filed by Shanti Bhushan, senior Advocate and former law minister, regarding the formation of the roster by the Chief Justice (CJI). Petitioner contended that concentration of powers in one hand is abuse of democracy. CJI is considered as the master of the roster, not by way of Constitution of India but by way of convention. According to the petitioner, roster must be the result of the collegium not by the CJI alone.
The bench is formed for hearing the petition, consisting Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan. Justice A.K. Sikri. The point contended by the petitioner regarding the validity of giving such powers solely in the hands of the CJI by way of conventions and not by of Constitution was acknowledged by Justice A.K. Sikri. All though to counter that he stated that such practice has been developed by way of healthy practices and legal conventions which have been developed over a period of time as well as became part of Supreme Court rules as well.
The bench relied on the decision rendered by the constitutional bench formed in Campaign for Judiciary Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) v. Union of India and Anr. In CJAR case, CJI was given the title of master of roster by relying on the decision given in State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1988) 1 SCC 1, in this case the decision was given in context of Chief Justice of High Court, but the bench stated that the same principle will be applied in CJAR case.
Another emphasis was given to Ashok Pande case. In this case PIL was filed by Ashok Pande for the formation collegium of three senior judges, for allocation of the cases. The bench led by the CJI and other three judges, refused such relief on the grounds that:
The petitioner’s argument were completely based on the second judges case, where it was stated that CJI is interpreted as collegium. It was stated that powers of sensitive nature cannot be concentrated in one hand, decision regarding an important matters must be made by plurality of opinions rather than single opinion. This argument of the petitioner was rejected as this decision was rendered in context of appointment of judges, under Article 124 of Indian Constitution. This cannot be considered as equivalent of the administrative power of allotting roster given to CJI, the head of the Supreme Court or CJ, the head of the High court.
In the judgment Justice Ashok Bhushan laid emphasis on the practical side of the logic behind CJI allotting the roster. He referred to Uttar Praesh and Others v. Neeraj Chaubey case, in this it was held that if judges were given any sort of choice, the result will be internal disputes regarding the jurisdiction and allotment of a particular cases.
The bench in its judgement concluded that, allotting the cases by CJI is given in the Supreme Court rules, therefore it has to be complied with. The bench completely refused to declare that the allotment of cases can be done by the five senior judges instead of CJI. It also highlighted one of the major fact that CJI is only responsible for the allotment of cases but once the case has been allotted, the Judge under whom the allotment occurred, has complete authority of making decision in the matter.
86540
103860
630
114
59824