CJI raises queries on referrals by SC judges
GOING BY THE RULES CJI differs with twojudge bench after it refers a quota in promotions case directly to a Constitution bench
NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra on Wednesday took exception to a day-old order in which justice Kurien Joseph and justice R Bhanumathi directly asked a Constitution bench to decide if the quota benefit could be extended to promotions.
There was a need to revisit the top court’s 2006 order that said the state was not bound to extend quota in promotions to government employees, the two judges said on Tuesday. They had left it to the CJI to decide on the judges who would hear the case.
“Can a two-judge bench directly refer a matter to a Constitution bench?” the CJI said, saying that two-judge benches must refer cases to three-judge benches, which can refer cases to five-judge benches if needed.
Tuesday’s order of the twojudge bench came barely five days after a five-judge bench led by justice Misra said the CJI was “the master of the roster” and would have the final word on the composition of benches.
The issue of roster arose after a two-judge bench headed by justice J Chelameswar referred a petition for an SC-monitored probe into the alleged Lucknow medical college admission scam and allegations of bribery against judges to top five judges.
In their Tuesday’s order, jus- tice Joseph and justice Bhanumathi said the petition involved interpretation of Constitution in the backdrop of the several court orders, including the Mandal case that gave quota to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in education and government jobs.
Making a case for revisiting the 2006 order, the petitioners said the test of backwardness ought not to be applied to SC/STs in view of earlier rulings which were given by larger benches.
Attorney general KK Venugopal cited Article 145 (3) of the Constitution in support of the two justices, saying a two-judge bench could directly send a matter to the larger bench if constitutional issues were involved.
Cases dealing with constitutional matters are heard by at least five judges or more .
Some senior advocates opposed Venugopal’s submission but the court did not go into the correctness of the order. The court referred the case to a fivejudge bench which it said would only decide if the 2006 judgment needed to be revisited. The bench would not go into the merits of the judgment.
FIVE DAYS AGO, A BENCH LED BY JUSTICE MISRA HAD SAID THE CJI WAS ‘THE MASTER OF THE ROSTER’ AND WOULD HAVE THE FINAL WORD ON COMPOSITION OF THE BENCHES