Breaking: CJI Is The Master Of Roster: SC Reiterates, Dismisses Shanti Bhushan's Petition [Read Judgment]

Although Constitution is silent on the role of CJI as the master of roster, it is based on healthy practise to maintain discipline and decorum of the Court.. CJI has authority to allocate cases and need not consult other judges - Justice SikriDismissing the petition filed by Senior Advocate Santhi Bhushan seeking regulation of powers of the CJI in constituting benches and allocating cases, the Supreme Court asserted that CJI was the 'Master of the Roster'.Bhushan's petition contended that the concentration of absolute powers in the CJI with regard to the determination of roster was unconstitutional. Therefore, the petition sought a declaration that roster should be decided not by CJI alone, but by a collegium of five senior judges.However, the bench of Justice A.K Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan did not accept the contentions. Relying on the recent judgment in Asok Pande's case where the CJI-led bench had declared that the 'CJI was an institution in himself', the present bench stated that CJI need not consult the collegium on the allocation of cases. It held that reference to CJI cannot be deemed to mean the collegium.Justice Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan wrote separate but concurring judgments. "Although Constitution is silent on the role of CJI as the master of roster, it is based on healthy practise to maintain discipline and decorum of the Court.. CJI has authority to allocate cases and need not consult other judges ", Justice Sikri noted in the judgment. Justice Sikri also stated that acceptance of the plea of the petitioner would lead to practical difficulties, affecting day to day functioning of the Court.Santhi Bhushan had contended that conferring absolute authority on the CJI to allocate cases was unconstitutional, as unbridled and unguided concentration of power in a single authority was against democratic principles. The petition raised the allegation that there were several recent instances where this absolute power was abused with legal malice and cited the examples of listing of CJAR petition seeking investigation in medical college bribery case, petition questioning the appointment of CBI Special Director, petition of Jay Amit Shah against 'The Wire' etc.It can be said that the CJAR petition acted as the catalyst for this debate around 'Master of Roster'. The petition raised bribery allegations against a case considered by the bench headed by the CJI. So the matter was mentioned before the bench headed by the then next senior judge, Justice Chelameswar. The bench of Justice Chelameswar ordered the listing of matter before a bench of five senior judges, excluding the CJI, as allegations concerned the CJI. This order was set aside on the very next day, by a constitution bench headed by CJI.The issue regarding arbitrariness inthe allocation of "sensitive cases" was one of the causes for the press conference held by Justice Chelameswar, Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Kurian Joseph on January 12.Asok Pande's case Asok Pande, a lawyer from Allahabad, with a history of getting chastised by Allahabad High Court for filing malicious and frivolous petitions, had filed a PIL seeking similar prayers.On April 9, the petition came for admission before the by CJI-led bench and was reserved for orders after hearing the “brief arguments” of Pande, who had appeared as party-in-person. On April 11, judgment was delivered dismissing the petition stating that CJI had absolute prerogative in constituting benches and allotting cases.Meanwhile, Shanthi Bhushan had complained to the Registry that his petition, which was filed before the petition of Asok Pande, was not getting listed.It was on April 12, i.e the next day of dismissal of Pande’s petition, that Prashant Bhushan, counsel for Shanti Bhushan, made a mention before the bench led by Justice Chelameswar, seeking urgent listing of the matter. However, Justice Chelameswar refused to pass orders stating “I don’t want another reversal of my order within 24 hours”, palpably alluding to the unprecedented proceedings of November 10. And the matter was mentioned before the CJI-led bench, where Prashant Bhushan lamented that despite continuous follow up with the Supreme Court registry for almost a week, the petition has not been numbered. Thereupon, the matter was listed before a division bench comprising Justice A.K Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan, before whom Dushyant Dave and Kapil Sibal made extensive arguments, and the bench reserved the matter for orders on April 27. Given the importance of the issue, the bench sought for the views of Attorney General in the matter.Shanti Bhushan's PleaThe prayer in the petition was for a writ, order or direction holding and declaring that the listing of matters must strictly adhere to the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and the Handbook on Practice and Procedure and Office Procedure, subject to the clarification that The words ‘Chief Justice of India’ must be deemed to mean a collegium of 5 seniormost...

Breaking: CJI Is The Master Of Roster: SC Reiterates, Dismisses Shanti Bhushan's Petition [Read Judgment]

Mehal Jain And Manu Sebastian

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain And Manu Sebastian

Breaking: CJI Is The Master Of Roster: SC Reiterates, Dismisses Shanti Bhushan's Petition [Read Judgment]

Mehal Jain And Manu Sebastian

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mehal Jain And Manu Sebastian

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers