Power of CJI to allocate cases cannot be questioned: SC

New Delhi: Reiterating the legal position that the Chief Justice of India is the “Master of the Roster”, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the CJI’s authority in allocation of cases and selection of benches couldn’t be questioned on the grounds of alleged “arbitrariness”. A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A.M. Kanwilkar and D.Y. Chandrachud dismissed a PIL filed by advocate Asok Pande for a direction to evolve a “set procedure” for allocation of cases and selection of benches.

Writing the judgment, Justice Chadnrachud quoted a five-judge bench ruling in Novem-ber 2017 that the CJI, though considered as an equal among all Supreme Court judges, is the “Master of the Roster” and no one can question the CJI’s authority.

It may be recalled that on January 12, four top judges — J. Chelames-war, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur and Kurian Joseph — had alleged that there was no transparency in the allocation of cases and cited the Judge Loya case in this regard.

Subsequently, the CJI made the roster system public and portfolios were published on the Supreme Court website.

Dismissing the PIL, which again raised this issue, the bench said in view of this binding elucidation of the authority of the Chief Justice of India, the relief, which the petitioner sought, was manifestly misconceived. For one thing, it is a well-settled principle that no mandamus can issue to direct a body or authority which is vested with a rule-making power to make the rules or to make them in a particular manner.

The bench said the Supreme Court has been authorised under Article 145 to frame the rules of procedure. A writ of mandamus of the nature sought could not be issued. Similarly, the petitioner was not entitled to seek a direction that benches of this court should be constituted in a particular manner or, as he seeks, that there should be separate divisions of this court. The former lies exclusively in the domain of the prerogative powers of the Chief Justice.

From an institutional perspective, the bench observed that the Chief Justice is placed at the helm of the Supreme Court. In the allocation of cases and the constitution of benches, the Chief Justice has an exclusive prerogative. As a repository of constitutional trust, the Chief Justice is an institution in himself. The authority which is conferred upon the Chief Justice, it must be remembered, is vested in a high constitutional functionary.

The authority is entrusted to the Chief Justice because such an entrustment of functions is necessary for the efficient transaction of the administrative and judicial work of the court. The ultimate purpose behind the entrustment of authority to the Chief Justice was to ensure the Supreme Court is able to fulfil and discharge its constitutional obligations. The entrustment of functions to the Chief Justice as head of the institution is with the purpose of securing the position of the Supreme Court as an independent safeguard for the preservation of personal liberty. There cannot be a presumption of mistrust.

“To suggest that any judge would be more capable of deciding particular cases or that certain categories of cases should be assigned only to the seniormost among the judges of the Supreme Court has no foundation in principle or precedent. To hold otherwise would be to cast a reflection on the competence and ability of other judges to deal with all cases assigned by the Chief Justice, notwithstanding the fact that they have fulfilled the qualifications mandated by the Constitution for appointment to the office,” Justice Chandrachud said.