You can’t distrust me, says CJI, I am first among equals
Seniority can't be benchmark for deciding who should hear which case, says 3-judge SC bench
A PIL seeking to lay down ground rules for the composition of benches and allocation of work was rejected in the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
Rejecting the plea, a 3-judge bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed that the CJI is the "first among equals" and has the constitutional authority to decide on allocation of cases and setting up of benches to hear them.
The bench also said seniority in terms of appointment "has no bearing" on which cases a judge should hear.
Authoring the verdict on behalf of the bench, Justice DY Chandrachud called it a "misconception" that certain categories of cases or certain courts must consist only of the senior-most judges in terms of appointment. "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 senior-most among the Judges of the Supreme Court has no foundation in principle or precedent," declared the bench.
The PIL was filed in the backdrop of the January 12 press conference held by four senior-most apex court judges, wherein they had alleged improper allocation of cases by the CJI.
The judgment also said there cannot be a presumption of distrust in the Chief Justice. The authority in the matter of allocation of cases and constitution of Benches "is entrusted to the Chief Justice for the efficient transaction of the administrative and judicial work of the court."
Describing the petition as ‘scandalous,’ the court also said, "The role of the CJI in the allotment of cases and choice of benches can't be questioned. To undermine his authority and say he will exercise power arbitrarily is misconceived," the court said.
The petitioner had argued that "unfettered power was being exercised by the Chief Justices in the matter of formation of Benches", so, there should be specific and transparent rules to regulate the process. He also sought a transparent, codified procedure for the constitution of benches and allocation of cases in the Supreme Court.
The petitioner also wanted the rules to be changed so that the three-judge bench in the Chief Justice's court may include two judges next in seniority to him. A change to this effect would have included Justices J Chelameswar and Ranjan Gogoi in the bench, who had harped on the fact that CJI is abusing his power as the Master Roster.
Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, whose father Shanti Bhushan has filed a similar petition, called the judgment "farcial". "Some lawyer from Lucknow filed this petition and the CJI bench takes this and delivers the verdict. One of the future CJIs is also in the bench... This is to pre-empt our petition," Bhushan said.