The question of a Chief Justice being as Master Roster has again been raised. The extent of power of the Chief Justice of a High Court and that of the Chief Justice of India, have been examined in number of judgments.
Firstly, in an independent India, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in a judgment[1] , Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukherjee, as he then was held as under:
“
“It is clear to me, on a careful consideration of the constitutional position, that it is only the Chief Justice who has the right and the power to decide which Judge is to sit alone and which cases such Judge can decide; further it is again for the Chief Justice to determine which Judges shall constitute Division Benches and what work those Benches shall do. Under the rules of this Court, the rule that I have quoted above, it is for the Chief Justice to allot work to Judges and Judges can do only such work as is allotted to them.
It is not, in my view, open to a Judge to make an order, which could be called an appropriate order, unless and until the case in which he makes the order has been placed before him for orders either by the Chief Justice or in accordance with his directions. Any order which a Bench or a Single Judge may choose to make in a case that is not placed before them or him by the Chief Justice or in accordance with his directions is an order which, in my opinion, if made, is without jurisdiction.”
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P. Asthana in same judgment while concurring the order passed, held that the High Court as a whole consisting of the Chief Justice and his companion Judges had got jurisdiction to entertain any case either on the original or the appellate or the revisional side for decision, and that the other Judges can hear only those matters which have been allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions. Actually, soon after Independence, all the Hon’ble Judges of the Supreme Court used to sit together. Therefore, one finds even number of Judges constituting coram was not uncommon. The Learned judge held that “their jurisdiction is limited only to such cases as are allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions.”
A Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court[2] , held that it is permissible for the Chief Justice to reverse any earlier order of the allotment of any particular case or class of cases to a Judge sitting alone or to direct it may be heard by a Bench of two or more Judges.
A Full Bench of Madras High Court[3] held as under:
“
“The Hon’ble the Chief Justice has the inherent power to allocate the judicial business of the High Court including who of the Judges should sit alone and who should constitute the Bench of two or more Judges. No litigant shall, upon such constitution of a Bench or allotment of a case to a particular Judge of the Court will have a right to question the jurisdiction of the Judges or the Judge hearing the case. No person can claim as a matter of right that this petition be heard by a Single Judge or a Division Bench or a particular Single Judge or a particular Division Bench. No Judge or a Bench of Judges will assume jurisdiction unless the case is allotted to him or them under the orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice.”
A Full Bench of Allahabad High Court[4] dealt with an objection raised to the effect that since the writ petition was a part-heard matter of the Division Bench, it was not open to the Chief Justice of the High Court to refer that part-heard case to a Full Bench for hearing and decision. The Court referred to the Rules of the High Court that Judges shall sit alone or in such Division Benches as may be constituted by the Chief Justice from time to time and do such work as may be allotted to them by order of the Chief Justice or in accordance with his directions. It was held that the order of the Chief Justice was a perfectly valid and a legally sound order. The Chief Justice enjoys a special status not only under the Constitution but also under Rules of the High Court. The Chief Justice alone can determine jurisdiction of various Judges of the Court. He alone can assign work to a Judge sitting alone and to the Judges sitting in Division Bench or to Judges sitting in Full Bench. He alone has the jurisdiction to decide which case will be heard by a Judge sitting alone or which case will be heard by two or more Judges. The Court proceeded to held as under:
“
“50. The conferment of this power exclusively on the Chief Justice is necessary so that various courts comprising of the Judges sitting alone or in Division Bench, etcetera, work in a co-ordinated manner and the Jurisdiction of one court is not over-lapped by other court. If the Judges were free to choose their jurisdiction or any choice was given to them to do whatever case they may like to hear and decide, the machinery of the Court would collapse and the judicial functioning of the Court would cease by generation of internal strife on account of hankering for a particular jurisdiction or a particular case. The nucleus for proper functioning of the Court is the “self” and “judicial” discipline of Judges which is sought to be achieved by Rules of Court by placing in the hands of the Chief Justice full authority and power to distribute work to the Judges and to regulate their Jurisdiction and sittings.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a judgment[5] more than Four decades earlier held:
“
“The Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He has full power, authority and jurisdiction in the matter of allocation of business of the High Court which flows not only from the provision contained in sub-section (3) of Section 51 of the Act, but inheres in him in the very nature of things.”
In another judgment[6], it was held that it is a prerogative of the Chief Justice to Constitute Benches of this High Court and to allocate works to such Benches. Judicial discipline requires that puisne Judges of the High Court comply with the directions given in this regard by the Chief Justice. In fact, it is their duty to do so. Individual puisne Judges cannot pick and choose matters they will hear and decide, hear or decide, nor they can decide whether to sit singly or in Division Bench.
The conferment of the power to constitute Benches exclusively on the Chief Justice is necessary so that various courts comprising of the Judges sitting alone or in Division Bench etc., work in a coordinated manner and the jurisdiction of one court is not overlapped by other court. If the Judges were free to choose their jurisdiction or any choice was given to them to do whatever case they may like to hear and decide, the machinery of the Court would collapse and the judicial functioning of the Court would cease by generation of internal strife on account of hankering for a particular jurisdiction or a particular case. The nucleus for proper functioning of the Court is the ‘self’ and ‘judicial’ discipline of Judges which is sought to be achieved by Rules of Court by placing in the hands of the Chief Justice full authority and power to distribute work to the Judges and to regulate their jurisdiction and sittings.”
In Prakash Chand’s case[7], one of the Hon’ble Judges was assigned Division Bench. He took objection to the listing of a matter which was earlier listed before him as a single Bench on the ground that it is a part-heard matter, though he was sitting in Division Bench. The Hon’ble Judge passed an order to list matter before him and in fact, issued a contempt notice to the Registrar of the High Court. He also issued Contempt notice to the Chief Justice of the High Court. In this background, the judgment referred to above came to be delivered. The Court has struck down remarks by the Hon’ble Judge, but in respect of the merits the Court concluded as under:
1. 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.
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.
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 themselves and one or both the Judges constituting such bench sit singly and take up any other kind of judicial business not otherwise assigned to them by or under the directions of the Chief Justice.
5. That the Chief Justice can take cognizance of an application laid before him under Rule 55 (supra) and refer a case to the larger bench for its disposal and he can exercise this jurisdiction even in relation to a part-heard case.
6. That the puisne Judges cannot “pick and choose” any case pending in the High Court and assign the same to himself or 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.
A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in a judgment[8] observed that there can be no doubt that the Chief Justice of India is first among his equals, but definitely exercises certain administrative powers that’s what has been stated in Prakash Chand’s case.
The same principle, as applicable to the High Courts, 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 Chand, 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.
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 Chand, which were 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 Chief Justice of India to constitute a particular Bench.
The law laid down in Prakash Chand’ case though decided in the Context of Chief Justice of High Court, it is applicable to the Supreme Court so that there is 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 Constitution Bench. Needless to say, 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.
Unfortunately, there is deficient trust in every person and/or institution. Every citizen feels that he is the sole repository of wisdom, independence and he alone is watchdog of democracy. No Hon’ble Judge can say that he alone can decide a particular matter. No Hon’ble Judge has any interest in the matter to insist that the matter should be placed before him in terms of a judicial order. By insisting that matter should be heard by him alone, there’s indirect remarks against the other Hon’ble Judges that he alone would do justice, and the other Judges will not do justice. The Chief justice as a master of roster, is enjoined this duty to make sitting arrangements of sitting of the Hon’ble Judges.
I am aware that in past a suggestion was given that the roster should be framed by the Collegium Judges. This suggestion is manifestation of trust deficient. I have seen, every now and then file comes to the Chief Justice for constitution of a Bench. Does, it means for every decision, the Chief Justice has to call a meeting of a collegium, reduce minutes in writing. The system cannot function, if we do not believe the person holding office. Another comment was made that notice has not been given to the parties before shifting of the case from one Bench to the another. In fact, it is not shifting of case, but assignment of a case. No decision is taken adverse to the parties. The Chief Justice is exercising administrative powers to constitute Benches. By assigning a matter to a Bench, there is no decision on merits of the lis. In addition, thereto, administrative power of the Chief Justice is not expected to be exercised in the manner judicial power is to be exercised. Therefore, the reasoning given by some, available in the social media is not correct.
*Justice Hemant Gupta, Former judge, Supreme Court of India
[1]State v. Devi Dayal (AIR 1959 All 421)
[2] Niranjan Singh versus State of Rajasthan, (AIR 1974 Rajasthan 171)
[3] Mayavaram financial Corporation Limited v. Registrar of Chits, (1990 SCC OnLine Mad 603)
[4] Sanjay Kumar Srivastava v. Acting Chief Justice, 1993 SCC OnLine All 616
[5] State of Maharashtra versus Narayan Shamrao Puranik [(1982) 2 SCC 440]
[6] Inder Mani versus Matheshwari Prashad [(1996) 6 SCC 587]
[7] State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand, [(1998) 1 SCC 1]
[8] Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms vs Union of India [(2018) 1 SCC page 196]