CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORMS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2017] 12 S.C.R. 331 · Decided: 10-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA, R.K. AGRAWAL, ARUN MISHRA, AMITAVA ROY, A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Matter referred to larger bench

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 12 S.C.R. 331 
CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY 
A 
AND REFORMS 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
(Writ Petition (Cr!.) No. 169 of2017) 
NOVEMBER 10, 2017 
[DIPAKMISRA, CJI, R. K. AGRAWAL, ARUN MISHRA, 
AMITAVA ROY A.ND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Supreme Court: Allocation of cases - Composition of Benches 
C 
- There can be no doubt that on the judicial side the Chief Justice 
is the first amongst the equals, but as far as the roster is concerned, 
the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and he alone has the 
prerogative to constitute the Benches of the Court and allocate cases 
to the Benches so constituted - Neither a two-Judge Bench nor a 
three-Judge Bench can allocate the matter to themselves or direct 
D 
the composition for constitution of a Bench - There cannot be any 
direction to the Chief Justice of India as to who slulll be sitting on 
the Bench or who shall take up the matter as that touches the 
composition of the Bench -
Such an order cannot be passed -
Judicial discipline and decorum. 
· 
Administration of justice: Justice delivery system - No Judge 
can take up the matter on his own, unless allocated by the Chief 
Justice of India, as he is the master of the roster - In view of this, 
any order passed which is contrary to this order be treated as 
ineffective in law and not binding on the Chief Justice of India. 
State of Rajas than v. Prakash Chand and Others 
(1988) 1 SCC 1 : [1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 1 - relied on. 
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2~08) 10 
SCC 1 : [2008] 15 SCR 331 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[1997) 6 Suppl. SCR 1 
[2008) 15 SCR 331 
relied on 
referred to 
331 
Para3 
Para4 
E 
F 
G 
H 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 12 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Cr!.) 
No. 169 of 2017. 
Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia. 
Prashant Bhushan, Adv for the Petitioner. 
B 
P. S. Narasimha, ASG, R.S. Suri, Ajit Sinha, P. P. Khuran, Ashok 
c 
D 
E 
Bhan, Aman Sinha, Anukul Pradhan, Sr. Advs, Gaurav Bhatia, Rahul 
Kaushik, Meenesh Dubey, Ms. Divya Roy, Umesh Babu C, Ms. Purnima 
. Johari, Ad vs for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
ORDER 
I. Today when the matter was listed before a two-Judge Bench, 
co1"11prising of Hon'ble Mr. Jt1stice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice 
Ashok Bhushan, the following order was passed:-
"Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel has brought to our notice 
order dated 09.11.2017 passed in W.P(Crl.) No.176/2017 referring 
the matter to the Constitution Bench. Let the matter be placed 
before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for passing appropriate orders 
for listing this matter. 
Mr. R.S. Suri, senior advocate/President, Supreme Court Bar 
Association (SCBA) submits that SCBA also wants to get itself 
impleaded as a party respondent and render assistance. On an 
oral request of Mr. Suri, the prayer is allowed and the SCBA is 
impleaded as a party respondent." 
2. After perusal of the aforesaid order, it was thought appropriate 
F 
by the Chief Justice of India to constitute a Constitution Bench and, 
accordingly, the matter has been placed before us. 
3. It is submitted by Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor 
General, Mr. R.S. Suri, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Mr. Ashok 
Bhan, learned senior counsel, Mr. Gaurav Bhatia and Mr. Gopal Singh, 
G 
learned counsel, along with other counsel that as per the judgment 
rendered by the three-Judge Bench in State ofRajastlum vs. Prakash 
Chand and Others (1998) 1 SCC 1, the Chief Justice of the High Court 
is the master of the roster and there is no justification not to treat the 
Chief Justice of India, who is the Chief Justice of the Apex Court, to 
H 
have the same power. If the same principles are not followed, the 
CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY 
333 
AND REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
institution cannot function. Our attention has also been drawn to Order 
A 
VI Rule 2 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, which reads as follows:-
"2. Where in the course of the hearing of any cause, appeal or 
other proceeding, the Bench considers that the matter should be 
dealt with by a larger Bench, it shall refer the matter to the Chief 
Justice, who shall thereupon constitute constitute such a Bench 
B 
for the hearing of it." 
In Prakash Chand (supra), the Court stated thus:-
"From the preceding discussion the following broad 
CONCLUSIONS emerge. This, of course, is not to be treated as 
a summary of our ju

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