IMPORTANT POINTS
Reckless allegations levelled against Judges of High Court deprecated.
No mandamus can issue to direct a body or authority vested with rule making power to make rules or to make them in a particular manner.
Chief Justice is an institution in himself. There cannot be a presumption of mistrust.

JUDGMENT

Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J

1. The petitioner, who is a member of the Bar, has instituted these proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming to be “a public spirited person”. He states that he is a “scholar in the field of the Constitution” and that he has filed nearly two hundred petitions in the public interest before the Allahabad High Court, Gujarat High Court and in this Court as well. The reliefs which he seeks are as regards the constitution of Benches of this Court and the Allahabad High Court. What is sought in these proceedings is depicted in the two prayers for relief which are extracted below:

“(a) to issue a writ of mandamus to the first respondent (Supreme Court of India) to evolve the set Procedure for constituting the benches and allotment of jurisdiction to different benches in Supreme Court. The Petitioner seeks mandamus to the first respondents to have a specific rule in Supreme Court Rules that the three judges bench in Chief Justice court shall consist of the chief justice and two senior most judges and the Constitutional bench shall consist of five senior most judges or three senior most Judges and two junior most judges. The Petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus to the first respondent to constitute :

Supreme Criminal Court

Supreme PIL Court

Supreme Tax Court

Supreme Service Court

Supreme Land Dispute Court

Supreme Misc. Matter Court…. Etc.

(b) The Petitioner also seeks writ of mandamus to the second respondent i.e. Allahabad High Court to evolve set rules with respect to formation of benches and vesting of jurisdiction to them on the pattern of rules so framed by the Supreme Court. The rule should also contain that the bench of Advocate judges will be constituted with Advocate judges and the bench of service judges coming from eligibility criteria number one of article 217 (3) of Constitution with the judges coming from District judiciary not with Advocate judges.”

2. The petitioner has a litany of grievances, many of which are personal to him. The averments contained in the petition indicate that a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971. The petitioner seems to have a grievance with an order which was passed restraining his entry into the premises of the High Court. The nature of his allegations is evinced in the following extract:

“For prosecuting the Petitioner under the Contempt of Courts Act on the charge of writing a letter to the Chief Justice against the Misbehaviour of a judge, a Chief Justice ordered the listing of my case before the bench headed by Sri Sudhir Agrawal J. And he sitting with a judge coming from district judiciary convicted and sentenced me. He sitting with an advocate judges threatened me on the very first date of hearing to restrain my entry in high court except on the date fixed in the contempt case but as the second judge was not agree and so he could not pass the order but as the judge sitting on that also not agree and the order of suspension from practice could not be passed and so he managed the formation of bench with a third judge on the next date. He was a judge coming from district court. He agreed for passing the order of suspension and so the Petitioner was suspended from practice and his entry in the high court was banned. This happened as in place of the regular bench assigned the matters of criminal contempt as per the prevailing roaster, the chief justice nominated a bench headed by Sri Sudhir Agrawal.”

3. The petitioner has then proffered his suggestions about how the benches of this Court should be constituted. He suggests that the same principle should be followed in the High Court.

4. We must, at the outset, express our disapproval of the manner in which the petitioner has sought to cast aspersions on the bench of the Allahabad High Court which was assigned with the hearing of the contempt proceedings against the petitioner. What the petitioner has averred is not based or founded upon any