CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND REFORMSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

                      [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)                    B
                       NOVEMBER 10, 2017
  [DIPAKMISRA, CJI, R. K. AGRAWAL, ARUN MISHRA,
      AMITAVA ROY A.ND A. M. KHANWILKAR, JJ.]
       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.                    ·
                                                                          E
       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.
                                                                          F
      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                                G

      [1997) 6 Suppl. SCR 1            relied on         Para3
      [2008) 15 SCR 331                referred to       Para4

                                                                          H
                                 331
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
        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:
c                                     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
D
             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
E
             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 judgment and the conclusion should be read            C
      with the text of the judgment:
      ( l) That the administrative control of the High Court vests in the
      Chief Justice alone. On the judicial side, however, he is only the
      first amongst the equals.
                                                                             D
      (2) That the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He alone
      has the prerogative to constitute benches of the court and allocate
      cases to the benches so constituted.
      (3) That the puisne Judges can only do that work as is allotted to
      them by the Chief Justice or under his directions.
                                                                             E
      (4) That till any determination made by the Chief Justice lasts,
      no Judge who is to sit singly can sit in a Division Bench and no
      Division Bench can be split up by the Judges constituting the bench
      can be split up by the Judges constituting the bench themselves
      and one or both the Judges constituting such bench sit singly and
                                                                             F
      take up any other kind of judicial business not otherwise assigned
      to them by or under the directions of the Chief Justice.
                 ***              ***             ***
      (6) That the puisne Judges cannot "pick and choose" any case
      pending in the High Court and assign the same to himself or            G
      themselves for disposal without appropriate orders of the Chief
      Justice.
      (7) That no Judge or Judges can give directions to the Registry
      for listing any case before him or them which runs counter to the
      directions given by the Chief Justice."                                H
334            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 12 S.C.R.


A           4. Mr. Narasimha and Mr. Suri have also drawn our attention to
      the authority in Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Others (2008)
      10 sec I, wherein it has been held as follows:-
            "In the present case the Bench of two learned Judges has, in
            terms, doubted the correctness of a decision of a Bench of three
B           learned Judges. They have, therefore, referred the matter directly
            to a Bench of five Judges. In our view, judicial discipline and
            propriety demands that a Bench of two learned Judges should
            follow a decision of a Bench of three learned Judges. But if a
            Bench of two learned Judges concludes that an earlier judgment
            of three learned Judges is so very incorrect that in no circumstances
c           can it be followed, the proper course for it to adopt is to refer the
            matter before it to a Bench of three learned Judges setting out, as
            has been done here, the reasons why it could not agree with the
            earlier judgment. If, then, the Bench of three learned Judges also
            comes to the conclusion that the earlier judgment of a Bench of
D           three learned Judges is incorrect, reference to a Bench of five
            learned Judges is justified."
             5. There can be no doubt that the ChiefJustice oflndia is the first
      amongst the equals, but definitely, he exercises certain administrative
      powers and that is why in Prakash Chand(supra), it has been clearly
      stated that the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief
 E    Justice alone. The same principle must apply proprio vigore as regards
      the power of the Chief Justice of India. On the judicial side, he is only
      the first amongst the equals. But, as far as the roster is concerned, as
      has been stated by the three-Judge Bench in Prakash Cfzand(supra),
      the Chief Justice is the master of the roster and he alone has the
 F    prerogative to constitute the Benches of the Court and allocate cases to
      the Benches so constituted.
          6. The aforesaid position though stated as regards the High Court,
   we are absolutely certain that the said principle is applicable to the
   Supreme Court. We are disposed to think so. Unless such a position is
   clearly stated, there will be utter confusion. Be it noted, this has been
G
   also the convention of this Court, and the convention has been so because
   of the law. We have to make it clear without any kind of hesitation that
   the convention is followed because of the 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
H. Benches. Needless to say, neither a two-Judge Bench nor a three-Judge
       CAMPAIGN FOR JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY                                     335
     AND REFORMS v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

Bench can allocate the matter to themselves or direct the composition           A
for constitution of a Bench. To elaborate, there cannot be any direction
to the Chief Justice of India as to who shall be sitting on the Bench or
who shall take up the matter as that touches the composition of the
Bench. We reiterate such an order cannot be pas~ed. It is not
countenanced in law and not permissible.
                                                                                B
       7. An institution has to function within certain parameters and
that is why there are precedents, rules and conventions. As far as the
composition of Benches is concerned, we accept the principles stated in
Prakash Qwnd(supra), which was stated in the context of the High
Court, and clearly state that the same shall squarely apply to the Supreme
Court and there cannot be any kind of command or order directing the            c
Chief Justice oflndia to constitute a particular Bench.
      8. In this context, Mr. Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor
General has drawn our attention to Article 145(2) and (3) of the
Constitution. The said provisions read as under:-
                                                                                D
      "145. Rules of Court, etc.-
      (1)    ............ ..

      (2) Subject to the provisions of clause (2), rules made under this
      article may fix the minimum number of Judges who are to sit for·
      any purpose, and may provide for the powers of single Judges E
      and Division Courts.
      (3) The minimum number of Judges who are to sit for the purpose
      of deciding any case involving a substantial question of law as to
      the interpretation of this Constitution or for the purpose of hearing
      any reference under Article 143 shall be five:                            F
           Provided that, where the Court hearing an appeal under any
      of the provisions of this chapter other than Article 132 consists of
      less than five Judges and in the course of the hearing of the appeal
      the Court is satisfied that the appeal involves a substantial question
      oflaw as to the interpretation of this Constitution the determination     G
      of which is necessary for the disposal of the appeal, such Court
      shall refer the question for opinion to a Court constituted as required
      by this clause for the purpose of deciding any case involving such
      a question and shall on receipt of the opinion dispos.e of the appeal
      in conformity with such opinion."
                                                                                H
336              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2017] 12 S.C.R.



A           9. The rules have been framed in that regard. True, the rules deal
      with reference, but the law laid down in Prakash Ownd (supra) has to
      apply to the Supreme Court so that there will be smooth functioning of
      the Court and there is no chaos in the administration of justice dispensation
      system. If any such order has been passed by any Bench, that cannot
      hold the field as that will be running counter to the order passed by the
B
      Constitution Bench. Needless to say, no Judge can take up the matter
      on his owri, unless allocated by the Chief Justice of India, as he is the
      master of the roster.
              I 0. In view of the aforesaid, any order passed which is contrary
      to this order be treated as ineffective in law and not binding on the Chief
c     Justice oflndia.
            11. As far as the present writ petition is concerned, on merits, the
      matter be listed before the appropriate Bench to be allocated by the
      Chief Justice oflndia.
D             12. List the matter after two weeks.


      Devika Gujral                          Mauer to be listed before appropriate Bench.