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. Khanwilkar 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 Chandrachud quoted a five-judge bench ruling in November 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. Chelameswar, 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.
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 said the CJ is placed at the helm of the apex court. In the allocation of cases and the constitution of benches, the Chief Justice has an exclusive prerogative.
