SC dismisses plea for framing rules on allocation of cases

new delhi — The Chief Justice of India (CJI) is the “first among equals” and has the constitutional authority to decide allocation of cases and setting up of benches to hear them, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud dismissed a PIL seeking framing of guidelines for rational and transparent allocation of cases and constitution of benches to hear them.

Holding that in the allocation of cases and the constitution of benches, the Chief Justice has exclusive prerogative, the bench in their judgment, said: “... such an entrustment of functions is necessary for the efficient transaction of the administrative and judicial work of the Court”.

“There cannot be a presumption of mistrust. The oath of office demands nothing less,” said the judgement. The constitution of benches “lies exclusively in the domain of the prerogative powers of the Chief Justice” and anything that curtails the authority of the Chief Justice, the judgement said, “would intrude into the exclusive duty and authority of the Chief Justice to constitute benches and to allocate cases to them”.

Speaking for the bench, Justice Chandrachud noted: “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 entrustment of functions to the Chief Justice as the 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,” he said, adding that the “ultimate purpose” behind giving the CJI this authority is to ensure that the court is “able to fulfil and discharge the constitutional obligations which govern and provide the rationale for its existence”.

The court said this while rejecting the PIL by advocate Asok Pande seeking the framing of rules under which a three judge Bench in the court of the Chief Justice must consist of the Chief Justice and his two senior-most colleagues alone, while the Constitution Bench should consist of five senior-most judges or three senior-most and two junior-most judges.

The PIL was filed in the backdrop of the January 12 press conference held by senior-most apex court judges including Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph, an unprecedented event.

The judges had alleged improper allocation of cases by the CJI.

Holding that the relief sought by the petitioner was “manifestly misconceived” and “contrary to legal and constitutional principle”, the judgement said: “There is no constitutional foundation on the basis of which such a suggestion can be accepted.”

Noting that petitioner “harbour a misconception” that certain categories of cases or certain courts must consist only of the senior-most in order of their appointment, it said: “Every Judge appointed to this Court under Article 124 of the Constitution is invested with the equal duty of adjudicating cases which come to the Court and are assigned by the Chief Justice.” —

The entrustment of functions to the Chief Justice as the 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, D Y Chandrachud, Supreme Court judge