SHANTI BHUSHAN versus SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 972 · Decided: 06-07-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
972
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
SHANTI BHUSHAN
v.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR AND ANOTHER
(Writ Petition (C) No.789 of 2018)
JULY 06, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art.145 – Administrative authority of
Chief Justice of India in preparing roster for allocation of cases –
Clarification of – Held: Per A.K. Sikri, J.: The Constitution is silent
on the role of the ‘Chief Justice’ – However, the Constitution Bench
in the case of Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms
had held that Chief Justice alone has the administrative control of
the Supreme Court and he 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 – Legal position
contained in the various judgments of the Supreme Court is based
upon healthy practice and sound conventions which have developed
over a period of time and that stands engrafted in the Supreme
Court Rules – The two most obvious functions of the ‘Chief Justice’
are to exercise judicial power as a Judge of the Court on equal
footing as others, being ‘among equals’ and to assume responsibility
of the administration of the Court, which gives him the ultimate
authority for determining the distribution of judicial work load –
Per Ashok Bhushan, J. (concurring): Sub-article (1) of Art.145
provides that subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament,
the Supreme Court may from time to time, with the approval of the
President, make rules for regulating generally the practice and
procedure of the Court, including the various subjects as enumerated
in sub-article (1) – The power of the Chief Justice to allocate cases
flows from the rules framed u/Art.145 – The Chief Justice of India
has been exercising the jurisdiction of formulating the roster for
convenient distribution of Court’s business and constituting the
benches from time to time – Furthermore, it is also clear from the
law laid down by the Supreme Court in various Judgments that
allocation of business of Court by the Chief Justice not only flows
 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 972
972
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
973
from the Constitutional provisions but it is the prerogative of the
Chief Justice and which is a convention followed from the very
beginning – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Practice and Procedure.
Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Whether the expression ‘Chief
Justice’ in the Supreme Court Rules is to be read as ‘Collegium’ of
first five Judges – Held: Per A.K. Sikri, J.: In case the expression
‘Chief Justice’ is to be interpreted as ‘Collegium’, it would be difficult
to have smooth day to day functioning of the Supreme Court –
Assigning of cases is undertaken by the Chief Justice on daily basis
in contrast with the meetings of the Collegium for the purpose of
appointment of Judges, which is infrequent – Thus, meeting of
Collegium for the purpose of assigning the cases to a particular
Bench on daily basis is impracticable – Per Ashok Bhushan, J.
(concurring):  Art.145 empowers the Supreme Court to frame rules
with the approval of the President and the Rules framed by Supreme
Court u/Art.145 specifically refers the Chief Justice in Chapter VI,
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 allocation
of cases and formation of benches, Chief Justice should be read as
collegium – Practice and Procedure.
Disposing of the Writ petition, the Court
HELD:
Per A.K. Sikri, J.:
1.  The ‘Chief Justice’ in his individual capacity is the Master
of Roster and it cannot read as Collegium of first three or five
Judges.  Thus, it is his prerogative to constitute the Benches
and allocate the subjects which would be dealt with by the
respective Benches.  [Para 20] [995-D-E]
2.  The Constitution is silent on the role of the ‘Chief
Justice’.  There is no specific provision relating thereto either in
the Constitution or even in any other law.  The legal position
contained in the earlier judgments is based upon healthy practice
and sound conventions which have been developed over a period
of time and that stands engrafted in the Supreme Court Rules.
In fact, it is dominated by two stereo-types.  One, perpetuated by
SHANTI BHUSHAN  v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THR. ITS
REGISTRAR AND ANOTHER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
974
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
the common belief and wid

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