2018 Supreme(SC) 703

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
Shanti Bhushan – Petitioner
Versus
Supreme Court of India Through Its Registrar & Another – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018 (Arising Out of Diary No. 12405 of 2018)
Decided On : 06-07-2018

IMPORTANT POINTS
The two most obvious functions of the ‘Chief Justice’, being Master of Roster, are to exercise judicial power as a Judge of the Court on equal footing as others, being ‘among equals’ and to assume responsibility of the administration of the Court.
The Chief Justice cannot be read as Collegium under Article 145 and Supreme Court Rules.
Term ‘first among equals’ is generally relatable to the judicial function.
Ratio of a judgment is what it decides and not what logically follows therefrom.
Independence of judiciary basic structure of Constitution, major aspects of which are: independence; impartiality; fairness; and competence.
Factors required to be considered for assignment of cases are: Individual Judges’ interests and abilities, their specialisation in a particular area, their capacity to handle particular type of cases etc. Exercise of such power is better left to wisdom of the Master of the Roster, the Chief Justice.
System prevalent and developed in one jurisdiction cannot be mechanically adopted by judicial system in other countries.
Power of Chief Justice in regard to allocation of business of Court, apart from flowing from Constitutional provisions and Supreme Court Rules, is the prerogative of Chief Justice and is a convention followed from the very beginning.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 145 r/w Supreme Court Rules – Chief Justice of India – Master of the Roster – Having the prerogative to constitute Benches of the Court and allocate cases to the Benches so constituted. (Para 14)

       (1998) 1 SCC 1; (2018) 1 SCC 196; Writ Petition (Civil) No. 147 of 2018 – Relied upon

       (b) Constitution of India – Article 145 r/w Order VI, rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Chief Justice is the Master of Roster in his individual capacity – ‘Chief Justice’ cannot be read as Collegium of first three or five Judges. (Para 20, 40)

       Writ Petition (Civil) No. 147 of 2018; (1998) 1 SCC 1; (2018) 1 SCC 196 – Relied upon

       (c) Role of Chief Justice – Term ‘first among equals’ – Generally relatable to the judicial function – Term emphasising that voices of all members of a particular Bench, which may include ‘Chief Justice’, are given equal weight – In deciding cases, opinion of ‘Chief Justice’ also carries same weight as those of other Members of the Bench. (Para 21, 25)

       (d) Role of Chief Justice – Senior most Judge – Exercises leadership on the Court – Spokesperson and representative of judiciary in its dealings with Executive, Government and Community – Judicial reforms, including reforms on administrative side as well as procedural reforms and implementation thereof, moral responsibility of ‘Chief Justice’ – Chief Justice is ultimate authority for determining the distribution of judicial work load – Power of Chief Justice does not extend to regulate functioning of a particular Bench to decide cases assigned to it – When a particular matter is assigned to a particular Bench, that Bench acquires the complete dominion over the case. (Para 22, 24, 25)

       (e) Interpretation of Constitution – Rationale of treating Chief Justice as Collegium in context of Article 124 for appointment of Judges – Cannot be adopted in context of Article 145 having altogether different purpose – Moreover assignment of cases to different Benches is daily routine whereas meeting of Collegium is infrequent, for appointment of Judges. (Para 26, 27)

       (1993) 4 SCC 441; (1981) Supp. SCC 87; (1987) 4 SCC 611; (1998) 7 SCC 739 – Distinguished

       (f) Interpretation of judgment – Ratio decidendi – Ratio of a judgment is what it decides and not what logically follows therefrom. (Para 28)

       (g) Administration of justice – Supreme Court – Final arbiter of Constitution – Protector of fundamental rights – Independence of judiciary basic structure of Constitution – Major aspects: independence; impartiality; fairness; and competence. (Para 31)

       Civil Appeal No. 2357 of 2017; (1998) 1 SCC 1; (1981) Supp. SCC 87 – Referred

       (h) Administration of justice – Role of Chief Justice – Assignment of cases – Factors required to be considered – Individual Judges’ interests and abilities, their specialisation in a particular area, their capacity to handle particular type of cases etc – Exercise of power of assignment of cases – Better left to wisdom of the Master of the Roster, the Chief Justice. (Para 38)

       (i) Administration of justice – Adoption of practices in other jurisdictions – System prevalent and developed in one jurisdiction cannot be mechanically adopted by judicial system in other countries – No harm in adopting those healthy practices which can be easily adopted because of their universal application – There is always a scope for improvement. (Para 39)

       Per Ashok Bhushan, J. (Concurring)

       (j) Constitution of India – Article 145 r/w Order VI, Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Chief Justice – Master of the Roster – Allocation of business of Court – Power of Chief Justice – Apart from flowing from Constitutional provisions and Supreme Court Rules – Prerogative of Chief Justice – A convention followed from the very beginning. (Para 20)

       (1998) 1 SCC 1; (1996) 6 SCC 587; (1989) 2 SCC 754; (1996) 5 SCC 216; (2010) 10 SCC 320 – Referred

       (k) Constitution of India – Article 145 r/w Supreme Court Rues 2013, Order VI, Rule 1 – Chief Justice – Read as Collegium in context of Article 124 – Cannot be so read in context of Article 145 in matter of allocating cases and formulating benches of the Supreme Court. (Para 28)

       (2010) 10 SCC 320; (2018) 1 SCC 196; Writ Petition (C) No.147 of 2018 – Relied upon

       (1981) Supp. SC 87; 48 LAWYERS' EDITION U.S. 196 (1903) – Referred

       (1993) 4 SCC 441; (1998) 7 SCC 739 – Distinguished

       (l) Administration of justice – Practice and procedures – Conventions and practice of Supreme Court – Time tested – Need not to be tinkered with or imitated from different international practices of different Courts. (Para 38)

       Facts of the case:

       The petitioner herein, who is a senior advocate practicing in this Court and enjoys credible reputation in the profession as well as in public, has filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. In this writ petition, he seeks this Court to clarify the administrative authority of the Chief Justice of India (for short, the ‘Chief Justice’) as the Master of Roster and for laying down the procedure and principles to be followed in preparing the Roster for allocation of cases.

       According to the petitioner there is a need to devising a more rational and transparent system of listing and re-allocation of the matters.

       Finding of the Court:

       The Chief Justice cannot be read as Collegium under Article 145 and Supreme Court Rules.

       Result: Writ petition disposed of.