ASOK PANDE versus SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THR. ITS REGISTRAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 337 · Decided: 11-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
337
ASOK PANDE
v.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THR. ITS REGISTRAR AND
ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 147 of 2018)
APRIL 11, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR AND
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Constitution of India:
Arts. 32, 136, 145 – Power of CJI to constitute Benches and
allocate work to different Benches – Petitioner seeking mandamus
for evolution of “set procedure” for constituting Benches-three judge
Bench in the Court of Chief Justice to consist of Chief Justice and
two senior-most judges while a Constitution Bench to consist of
five senior-most judges; and allotment of cases to different Benches
in this Court – Held: Relief sought is misconceived – Mandamus
cannot be issued to direct a body or authority vested with a rule
making power to make rules or to make them in a particular manner
– Supreme Court has been authorised u/Art. 145 to frame rules of
procedure – Petitioner not entitled to seek a direction that Benches
of this Court be constituted in a particular manner or, that there
should be separate divisions of this Court – In the allocation of
cases and the constitution of benches, the Chief Justice has an
exclusive prerogative  – Further, seniority in terms of appointment
has no bearing on which cases a Judge should hear – Every Judge
appointed to this Court u/Art. 124 is invested with the equal duty of
adjudicating cases which come to the Court and are assigned by
the Chief Justice – In his capacity as a Judge, the Chief Justice is
primus inter pares: the first among equals – In the discharge of his
other functions, the Chief Justice of India occupies a position which
is sui generis – Art. 146 reaffirms the position of the Chief Justice
of India as the head of the institution – As repository of constitutional
trust, the Chief Justice is an institution in himself – Thus, there cannot
be a presumption of mistrust.
[2018] 3  S.C.R. 337
                                                    337
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
338
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018]  3 S.C.R.
Art.32 – Initiation of contempt proceedings against the petitioner,
whereby he was restrained from entering the High Court – Challenge
to, in a writ petition u/Art. 32 – Held: Legality of a judicial order
cannot be questioned in an original proceeding u/Art. 32 – If the
petitioner was aggrieved by a judicial order of the High Court,
remedies were available to him u/Art. 136 – Manner in which the
petitioner sought to cast aspersions on the bench of the High Court,
assigned with the hearing of the contempt proceedings against
petitioner, is unwarranted – Moreover, reckless allegations levelled
against judges of the High Court in a proceeding where correctness
of the orders passed by the High Court not in issue and necessary
parties to that proceeding not before the court.
Contempt proceedings were initiated against the petitioner-
lawyer, by the Allahabad High Court for making allegations against
several High Court Judges. An order was passed restraining his
entry into the premises of the High Court. Aggrieved the
petitioner, sought issuance of a writ of mandamus to the first
respondent-Supreme Court of India to evolve the set procedure
for constituting the benches and allotment of jurisdiction to
different benches in Supreme Court; and also sought issuance of
writ of mandamus to the second respondent-Allahabad High Court
to evolve set rules with respect to formation of benches and
vesting of jurisdiction to them on the pattern of rules so framed
by the Supreme Court.
Dismissing the petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Disapproval is expressed of the manner in which
the petitioner has sought to cast aspersions on the bench of the
Allahabad High Court which was assigned with the hearing of the
contempt proceedings against the petitioner. What the petitioner
has averred is not based or founded upon any judicial order. The
aspersions which he has cast on the judges of the High Court are
unwarranted. Significantly, the correctness of an order passed by
the High Court in the contempt proceedings initiated against the
petitioner is not in question in the present proceedings. If the
petitioner was aggrieved by a judicial order of the High Court,
remedies were available to him under Article 136. As a member
of the Bar, the petitioner should know better than to question
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
339
the conduct of a judicial proceeding before the High Court in a
writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. This is yet
another instance of reckless allegations being l

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.